FPI Sector-wise Flows

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing output characteristics: the fields returned and the three sorting orders. It also implies the data is periodic (fortnightly, 1-year). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action ('Get FPI sector-wise investment data') immediately. Every clause adds information about outputs or sorting. No fluff or repetition. It is ideal in length and structure for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned and how it is sorted. It does not mention data currency or frequency windows (e.g., as-of dates), but given the field names, these are implied. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool without further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description needs to explain no parameters, and it correctly omits any parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not add anything unnecessary.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves FPI sector-wise investment data, lists specific fields returned (AUM share, fortnight change, 1-year cumulative flow, sparkline), and explains the sorting orders. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_fii_dii_flows which cover daily flows, not sector breakdowns.

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 provides a clear use case: 'useful for understanding which sectors foreign investors are buying/selling.' This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand the appropriate scenario, but explicit routing to siblings would strengthen it.

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