fund_hk_fund_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return type is a pandas DataFrame and includes the source URL. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or row count limits, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with separate lines for the title, URL, parameters, and return type. The return type line repeats the title somewhat, but the overall length is appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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 data retrieval tool with two parameters and good annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: data source, parameter provenance, allowed values, and return type. It does not list output columns or date range, but given the nature of historical NAV endpoints this is largely self-explanatory and the tool is sufficiently 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that code is a fund code obtained from fund_em_hk_rank() and symbol is a choice between two specific values. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify the code format or the meaning of each symbol output.

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 identifies the resource as Hong Kong fund historical NAV details and dividend/distribution details, with the data source URL. It is specific to the fund type and data type but lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling fund history tools beyond the name.

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 a concrete usage hint: the code parameter should be obtained from ak.fund_em_hk_rank(), and symbol is restricted to two stated choices. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like fund_hk_rank_em or other historical fund tools, so the guidance is implicit.

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