Fund Filters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (filter object shape and quick-filter ids), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, the returned payload, the relationship to fund_list, and the parameter fact, with no filler.

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 read-only discovery tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose, return content and the no-parameter fact. It could say slightly more about how the quick-filter ids are meant to be passed to fund_list, but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has no meaningful input parameters, and the description explicitly says 'No parameters', matching the schema. The only schema property (_jq) is a generic wrapper fully documented in the schema itself, so no compensation is needed.

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 the filter options') and names exactly what is returned (filter object shape and quick-filter ids) plus the sibling it serves (fund_list). An agent can distinguish it from fund_list 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 ties itself to fund_list as the consumer of the returned filters, which implies the use case (discover valid filters before calling fund_list). It does not explicitly say 'call this before fund_list' or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.

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