Mutual fund performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned data because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about data freshness, handling of missing/young funds, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the most-sought data (latest NAV, category, fund house) is front-loaded before the return-series detail. The lack of an explicit leading verb costs it the top score but the sentence is otherwise efficient.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description adequately covers what comes back even though no output schema exists. Its only substantive gap is the absence of routing guidance versus search_mutual_funds.

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 100% and the single scheme_code parameter is fully documented in the schema (AMFI code from search_mutual_funds, with an example). The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 enumerates the exact resource contents a scheme lookup returns (NAV, category, fund house, trailing/calendar returns, volatility, drawdowns), which is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool. However, it is phrased as a noun list without an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_mutual_funds, which is the natural confusion point.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description. It does not say this is the detail fetch that follows a search_mutual_funds lookup, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The parameter schema implies provenance of scheme_code, but the description itself offers nothing.

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