amac_fund_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it specifies the source URL, the pagination semantics (start_page/end_page), and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). However, it does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, data update frequency, or what fields are included, so it only partially enriches the behavioral picture.

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 reasonably compact: a title line, a source URL, and docstring-style parameter/return notes. The essential information is front-loaded in the title line, and the URL adds provenance context. It is structured and not verbose, but the docstring formatting is somewhat mechanical and lacks a natural-language summary sentence.

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 simple read-only paginated data retrieval tool, the description provides the core behavior: fetching AMAC private equity fund product data across a page range and returning a DataFrame. However, it does not describe the DataFrame's columns or row content beyond the generic resource name, nor does it mention any pagination limits or error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity and clear annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, making the description the sole source of parameter meaning. It adequately explains start_page as '开始页码, 获取指定页码直接的数据' (starting page number, get data directly for the specified page) and end_page as '结束页码' (ending page number). While it doesn't specify constraints like page ranges or that start_page should be less than end_page, it provides meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema names and default values.

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 identifies the data source and resource: '中国证券投资基金业协会-信息公示-基金产品-私募基金管理人基金产品' (AMAC fund product information for private equity fund managers). Although no explicit verb like 'retrieve' is used, the docstring's ':return:' line states it returns this data as a DataFrame, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the specific resource name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar amac_* tools.

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 is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling amac_* tools (e.g., amac_fund_sub_info, amac_fund_abs), but the description does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the resource name and pagination parameters, with no direct recommendations.

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