list_funds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions listing and filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it does), rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral information unspecified.

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 extremely concise - a single Turkish sentence that directly states the tool's core functionality. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently communicates the essential capability. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address the tool's behavioral characteristics, response format, error conditions, or how to interpret results. While the schema documents parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed to use this tool effectively, especially given the complexity implied by numerous filtering options.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all 11 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide usage examples, or clarify how multiple filters interact. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't add value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Yatırım fonlarını listeler ve filtreleme imkanı sunar' (Lists investment funds and provides filtering capability). It specifies the verb ('listeler' - lists) and resource ('yatırım fonları' - investment funds), and mentions filtering as an additional capability. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_companies' or 'list_fund_types' that might also list different types of financial entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that could potentially overlap (like 'list_companies', 'list_fund_types', 'top_performing_funds'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific fund listing tool is appropriate versus those other listing tools. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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