fund_new_found_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the return type is a pandas.DataFrame and includes a source URL, but it does not disclose data freshness, columns, or any limitations. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich in behavior context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a category path, a source URL, and a return type annotation. No fluff is present, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool. The structure is a bit ad-hoc but clear enough.

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 of a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides basic essentials: resource, source URL, and return type. However, it lacks details about the returned DataFrame's fields or any filtering options. With no output schema and no usage guidance, the agent may not know what columns to expect or how the data is scoped.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 '新成立基金' (newly established funds) and provides a source URL (East Money), which distinguishes it from similar tools like fund_new_found_ths. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the tool name and the category path to imply retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention fund_new_found_ths or any other similar tool, nor does it specify the intended use case or context. This is a clear gap for an AI agent selecting between fund data tools.

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