finance_fund

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains three distinct behaviors (search, detail, ranking) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what errors might occur. The behavioral description is functional but lacks safety or side-effect details.

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 extremely concise: one sentence summarizing functionality followed by three example invocations. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema (not described), the description covers the core three modes well but omits the 'order' and 'fund_type' parameters. It also doesn't mention default behavior or output structure. Still, for a parametric query tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining code for detail, keyword for search, sort_by for ranking, and limit for pagination. However, order and fund_type are not described, leaving some semantics implicit. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it queries fund data with three explicit modes: search, detail, and ranking. Examples with concrete parameters (keyword, code, sort_by) make the purpose unmistakable and differentiate from sibling tools like finance_stock (stock data) and finance_market (market data) by focusing on mutual funds.

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 clear usage guidance by showing which parameters to use for each mode (keyword for search, code for detail, sort_by for ranking). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or compare to siblings, but the examples are sufficiently directive.

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