mf_featured

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'curated lists' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (a list of funds, fund metadata, etc.), or any side effects. The description is essentially a noun phrase without behavioral detail.

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 but is essentially a list of theme names with a trailing ellipsis. It is not front-loaded with a purpose statement, and the list style is more enumeration than an informative explanation. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists and so return values needn't be explained, the description still fails to convey the tool's core function (e.g., retrieving a curated mutual fund list based on a theme) and the meaning of the 'theme' parameter. Given a single required parameter and no annotations, this description is not sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'theme' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must explain it. It lists several example values (best_mutual_funds, best_sip_funds, etc.) but does not clarify whether these are exhaustive, what format is expected, or what selecting a theme does. The examples give a hint but insufficient semantics for correct use.

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 the tool provides 'ET Money curated lists' and lists example themes, which hints it returns curated mutual fund lists. However, it does not specify a verb or resource clearly (e.g., 'get' or 'fetch'), and it's ambiguous whether the tool returns the actual funds or just the list of themes. It is more than a tautology but lacks a clear action and object.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like mf_search, mf_list, or mf_categories. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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