search_fund

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, so the description's job is domain behavior — and it delivers: it discloses that CVM keys data on the *class* CNPJ (so a class-level identity, not just a fund name, comes back) and that results carry a family tag from a known set (fi, fii, fidc, fiagro, fip). What's missing is ambiguity/zero-result behavior and match-ranking expectations for partial queries.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and payoff in the first sentence, then a second block explaining the CNPJ/family mechanics. Every sentence carries information, though the line-broken formatting scatters related ideas slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description instead covers the prerequisite chain and the downstream family routing — the parts the schema cannot express. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter lookup, with only no-match behavior left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both `query` (partial name, CNPJ, or CVM code, with an example) and `limit` (max matches). The description adds no accepted-input syntax or matching nuance beyond that, so the 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 ('Find a fund or class') and, crucially, the output an agent needs ('get the CNPJ used by every fund tool'). That framing separates it from the company-side search tools in the sibling list and identifies it as the entry point for the fund tool chain.

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?

Implies when to call it: before any other fund tool, because every one requires the CNPJ this returns. It also explains downstream routing ('get_fund_nav routes automatically' based on the family). It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct contrast with search_company/resolve, so 4 rather than 5.

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