Fund Analysis

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 covered. The description adds only that the payload is a risk/return summary, with no detail on what "top-level" includes, response size, or rate behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted preamble. The trailing "optional period selector" is mildly redundant with the schema but the overall density is good.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and "risk/return summary" is thin for a tool whose sibling promises a more detailed view. It is adequate for a 3-parameter read but leaves the content boundary between this and fund_analysis_detail unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so counter_id format and the period semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the counter_id source and "optional period selector" adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Get a fund's top-level analysis (risk/return summary)." The word "top-level" implicitly contrasts with the sibling fund_analysis_detail, but the sibling is never named, so the distinction requires inference.

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?

Provides useful provenance guidance ("counter_id from fund_hot / fund_list") and notes the period selector is optional. However, it never says when to prefer this over fund_analysis_detail, fund_performance, or fund_trend, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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