Fund 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on error behavior for invalid IDs, no indication of what 'key figures' includes or how fresh/stale the profile data is.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the ID provenance immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned at a high level ('profile and key figures') and where the ID comes from. A brief note on what distinguishes the payload from sibling fund views would make it fully 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%, and both parameters (_jq and counter_id) are already documented in the schema, including the same ID format example. The description's restatement of the counter_id example and source adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a clear verb+resource ('Get a single fund's profile and key figures'), and the word 'single' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like fund_list and fund_hot. However, it does not differentiate itself from other single-fund retrieval tools such as fund_analysis, fund_nav, or fund_performance, leaving the agent to infer which single-fund view this returns.

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?

It gives provenance guidance for the required ID ('counter_id ... comes from fund_hot / fund_list'), which is genuine usage context. But it never states when to prefer this tool over the ~15 other fund_* siblings or what the expected inputs/conditions are beyond having a counter_id.

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