amac_manager_info

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but no additional behavioral details such as pagination, data limits, or freshness.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the title, followed by a useful URL and return type. It has no redundant content, but could be slightly improved with a proper explanatory 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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., columns, scope). It only repeats the title and return type, leaving the data structure and the 'comprehensive' nature ambiguous. More context is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-input comprehensive query and does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 names the resource and action: '私募基金管理人综合查询' (comprehensive query of private fund managers) from the AMAC website, with a URL and return type. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on manager info, though it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't compare with alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other AMAC tools like amac_manager_cancelled_info or amac_member_info. The description only states what it is, not when to prefer it, and no alternatives 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.