fund_detail

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. It only states that it '获取基金详细信息' (gets fund detailed information), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by a clear Args section. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the lack of additional context (e.g., usage guidelines, behavioral details) makes it feel slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 complexity (a tool for retrieving financial data with many sibling alternatives), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how it differs from other fund-related tools, or provide enough context for an AI agent to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it lists 'fund_code: 基金代码' (fund code) in the Args section, which matches the single parameter in the input schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter (e.g., format, examples, constraints). The description doesn't compensate by explaining what a fund code is, its format, or where to find it, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 states the purpose clearly: '获取基金详细信息' (Get fund detailed information). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('基金详细信息' - fund detailed information), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'fund_info', 'fund_asset', or 'fund_manager', which all appear to be related to fund data.

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 many sibling tools related to funds (e.g., fund_info, fund_asset, fund_manager), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. The only context is the parameter requirement, but no usage scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.

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