amac_member_sub_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors like network requirements or data 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 concise but somewhat repetitive, repeating the same phrase in the title and the :return: section. It lacks a clear front-loaded summary and the URL placeholder between the title and return value adds clutter.

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?

While the description provides enough context to understand the general data source, it lacks details about the DataFrame columns or the exact structure of the return. Given no output schema, the description could better explain what data is included.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input space. The description correctly avoids discussing parameters, aligning with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 specific resource: information disclosure for securities companies' private fund subsidiary managers from AMAC. It distinguishes from sibling tools like amac_member_info by the precise entity type, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'query' or 'fetch'.

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. It does not mention exclusions or compare with other AMAC tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and content alone.

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