fund_achievement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief but adequately structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, the formatting with 'Args:' on a separate line creates some visual clutter, and the single-sentence purpose could be more front-loaded with critical information.

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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '业绩表现数据' (performance data) includes, the time period covered, the format of returned data, or any limitations. Given the complexity of financial data and the lack of structured documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the essential semantic meaning of 'fund_code' as '基金代码' (fund code). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules beyond what's implied by the parameter name.

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's purpose as '获取基金业绩表现数据' (get fund performance data), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fund_detail', 'fund_growth', or 'fund_info', but the focus on '业绩表现' (performance) provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to funds (fund_asset, fund_detail, fund_growth, fund_info, fund_manager, fund_nav_history), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.

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