search_funds

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the operation is list/filter (non-mutating) and that Atlas subscription is required. It does not describe the return shape or default scope, which limits transparency.

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; the purpose is front-loaded and the Atlas restriction earns its place. It is compact without forcing the agent to parse unnecessary prose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation context, so the description should cover the return value and selection guidance. It only says 'List/filter funds' and the tier restriction, leaving agents unaware of whether it returns fund objects, IDs, or counts, and how it relates to get_fund.

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%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all five parameters, including the filter-tree structure and operators.

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?

"List/filter funds" is a clear verb-plus-resource statement; the resource "funds" differentiates it from siblings like search_investors or get_person. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_fund, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 action itself implies when to use it (when you need to list or filter funds), and the Atlas-tier note is an access restriction. It does not name alternatives such as get_fund for single-record retrieval, so usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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