Fund Analysis Detail

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 tool returns deeper metrics behind fund_analysis; it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or return structure, so it is minimally additive beyond the annotations.

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 two compact fragments with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter sourcing and optionality, so every part earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally explain what 'detailed analysis' returns. It only says 'deeper metrics behind fund_analysis', leaving the return contents and structure vague. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, but for an analysis endpoint the description is only minimally complete.

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 the schema already documents counter_id, its source (fund_hot / fund_list), and the optional period selector. The description repeats the counter_id source and period optionality without adding new syntax or meaning, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 detailed analysis'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fund_analysis by describing itself as the 'deeper metrics behind fund_analysis', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 gives clear context: it is the deeper analysis layer behind fund_analysis, and it tells the caller where to obtain counter_id (fund_hot / fund_list). It does not spell out explicit when-not conditions or name other alternatives, so it stops short of the highest guidance tier.

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