fund_aum_em

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas DataFrame), which is some context, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits or caveats.

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, contains only essential information (purpose, URL, return type), and is front-loaded with the tool's function. It lacks a structured explanation but earns a good score for efficiency.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential return type and source. However, it doesn't explain what columns the DataFrame contains or the ranking criteria, which could leave an agent uncertain about whether this matches a need.

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, and the schema confirms this. Per the scoring guide, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none.

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 tool as returning a fund company ranking list from Eastmoney, with a specific source URL. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the name 'fund_aum_em' and description provide a clear resource and action.

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, nor any context about the data (e.g., time range, ranking criteria). It simply states the source and return type.

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