mf_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool returns a detailed report (read-only), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, performance implications, or error conditions. It is reasonably transparent about the output scope but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Full fund report card') followed by a concise enumeration of contents. It is efficient and each listed item contributes meaning, though the colon-separated list is somewhat dense.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably details return fields), the description covers the key aspects of what is returned. It does not mention potential errors, required permissions, or limits, but for a retrieval tool of a single fund, the description is largely complete. The missing details are minor and not critical for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It only says 'by scheme id' without explaining what a scheme_id is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., positive integer, required format). This is insufficient to guide an agent on how to fill the parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Full fund report card') and a clear resource ('by scheme id'), enumerating the exact contents (NAV, returns, expense breakdown, holdings, sectors, risk ratios, peers, managers, tax treatment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mf_search (search) and mf_compare (compare) without confusion.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a comprehensive report for a specific fund when a scheme_id is known, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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