Fund Performance

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 data freshness, granularity, date-range, or auth constraints), but for a simple read-only fetch the annotation coverage makes a 3 adequate.

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 zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite hint follows immediately. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and "daily performance figures" is vague about the metric set, time range, and response shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly but leaves the agent guessing at the return content.

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 both parameters (counter_id and _jq) are already documented in the schema, including the exact same provenance note the description repeats. The description adds no format, syntax, or example detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 ("Get a fund's daily performance figures") with a clear scope (daily). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many adjacent siblings (fund_performance_comparison, fund_position_performance, fund_nav_history, fund_annual_returns, fund_quarterly_returns), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which performance tool is the right one.

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 adds a useful prerequisite chain ("counter_id from fund_hot / fund_list"), which tells the agent how to obtain the required identifier. It gives no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance among the performance-related siblings, so usage is only implied.

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