fund_info

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 '获取' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral 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 appropriately concise with just two lines: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, the separation between purpose and parameters could be slightly cleaner, and the Chinese-only text might limit accessibility in some contexts.

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 of financial data tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes, how results are formatted, whether there are authentication requirements, or how this differs from similar tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter (fund_code) and provides its Chinese name, which adds value beyond the schema's English title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or the meaning of the default value 'SZ000002'. It compensates partially but not fully for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('基金基本信息' meaning 'fund basic information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like fund_asset, fund_detail, or fund_nav_history by focusing on basic information rather than specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from fund_derived or fund_growth, which might also provide basic 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 like fund_detail, fund_asset, and fund_nav_history, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others. The lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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