Fund Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the top-10 scope and the counter_id source, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or what scene values mean.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the parameter sourcing note. Every clause carries information.

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 lookup with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. However, it lacks differentiation from the similar sibling fund_stock_holdings and provides no sense of what the holdings response contains beyond 'top-10'.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that counter_id comes from fund_hot / fund_list and that scene is optional, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a fund's top-10 holdings') and scopes it to the top 10. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling fund_stock_holdings, which appears to cover similar fund-holding 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?

It tells the agent where to obtain counter_id (fund_hot / fund_list) and that scene is optional, which is useful sourcing guidance. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like fund_stock_holdings or fund_holder.

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