fund_individual_achievement_xq

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. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, error behavior, or what happens with invalid fund codes. The example URL and parameter docs do not disclose behavioral traits.

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 a compact docstring with a title, example URL, parameter documentation, and return type. It is structured and not verbose, making it easy to scan. The example URL provides a concrete endpoint reference without bloating the description.

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 fund performance query, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and return type. However, it does not describe the contents of the returned DataFrame (e.g., columns, metrics) or provide usage context, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding. The annotations handle safety, so completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 no descriptions, so the description compensates by defining 'symbol' as the fund code and 'timeout' as a choice of None or a positive float. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw types, but it is minimal and does not explain the expected format of the fund code or provide examples beyond the schema's default.

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 indicates this tool returns fund performance (基金业绩) for a given fund code, with a return type of pandas.DataFrame. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on analysis, basic info, or holdings by specifying 'achievement' (业绩), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 alternatives such as fund_individual_analysis_xq or fund_individual_basic_info_xq. The description only documents parameters and return type, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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