getFundInfo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds details about the type of data returned (e.g., expense ratio, AUM) but does not cover permission requirements or data freshness. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single comprehensive sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple single-parameter input and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and the kind of data returned. It could include example output or more detail, but for a straightforward retrieval tool it is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description of 'Fund symbol' matches description's 'ticker symbol'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool accesses data on ETFs and mutual funds and lists specific fields like ticker symbol, expense ratio, and AUM. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as getETFList or getFundHoldings, which also deal with fund data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getETFList or getFundHoldings. The description implies it provides details for a specific fund by symbol, but lacks exclusions or context about sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.