Fund Quarterly Returns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral note is '(paged)', which confirms pagination exists but says nothing about ordering, result caps, or timeout behavior. Adds a little beyond annotations, not much.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the input-sourcing hint. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness comes at the cost of the usage context noted above.

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 paged read of one required key, with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. An agent can call it correctly; only the alternative-tool routing is absent.

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 counter_id, page, size and _jq are all documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates the counter_id source and marks page/size optional, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 per-quarter returns — which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling fund_annual_returns. The only miss is that it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader noticing 'quarter' vs 'annual'.

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 does give sourcing guidance ('counter_id from fund_hot / fund_list'), which helps an agent obtain a valid input. However, it offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context against fund_annual_returns, fund_performance, or fund_trend, so selection between overlapping return tools is left to inference.

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