Fund Hot List

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful output context (row shape, counter_id format like UT/FD/HK0000384492) but says nothing about ordering, coverage scope, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by the ID-chaining rationale. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 does some work in disclosing the returned row shape and counter_id format, and annotations cover the safety profile. It remains thin on what 'hot' means (ranking basis, top-N, refresh cadence), which an agent might reasonably want.

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 single _jq filter param is already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'No parameters' is accurate for the upstream request but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List hot-selling funds in the Longbridge fund channel'), which is more concrete than a bare title restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling fund_list, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that every row carries the counter_id 'used by every other fund_* tool' hints this is a discovery entry point for ID chaining, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. fund_list for full listings).

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