fund_aum_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main additions are the source URL and the pandas.DataFrame return type. It does not disclose deeper behavioral nuances like column contents or data currency, but it doesn't contradict any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a source URL and standard docstring entries for parameter and return. Every line carries some information, though it is somewhat terse.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential resource, source, and return type. However, it omits practical details like supported year ranges or ranking scope, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is expected to compensate. It only states that 'year' is a string for the query year, which adds little beyond the parameter name and default. No format examples, valid range, or domain-specific clarification is provided.

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 it returns a historical ranking list of fund company management scale (AUM) from Eastmoney, which identifies both the resource and the action. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fund_aum_em or fund_aum_trend_em, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 instead of alternatives such as fund_aum_em or fund_scale_change_em. The description only provides parameter and return documentation, leaving the selection criteria entirely to the agent.

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