fund_new_found_ths

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations: it provides the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose data freshness, typical row counts, pagination behavior, or any caveats. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already declared, the added behavioral context is minimal.

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 and follows a clean docstring structure: title, URL, param, return. It is appropriately sized, though the URL could be considered extra; overall it is well-organized and free of fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the necessary basics. However, the return value is only vaguely described as 'new fund data' without column details or example output, and no output schema exists to fill the gap. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'symbol' with its meaning ('选择基金类型') and explicit choices ({"全部", "发行中", "将发行"}). This is sufficient for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the tool is for new fund data from THS ('新发基金'), backed by the title and URL. It is clear what it does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling fund_new_found_em, which serves a similar purpose from a different data source.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions the symbol choices but does not compare with other fund tools or state any exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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