search_mutual_funds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it searches AMFI data and returns scheme codes. However, it lacks details on behavior such as pagination, error handling, rate limits, or whether it returns exact matches or fuzzy results. The description provides partial context but leaves gaps.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and outcome, immediately followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no superfluous content.

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 an output schema (not shown, but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the search intent and lifecycle (before fetching NAV). Minor gap: does not explain that multiple schemes could match a query, but this is partially addressed by the intent of getting a code.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself does not describe parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'query' (the fund name) or 'limit' (max results) beyond their names in the schema. It fails to add value that helps the agent understand how to use the parameters correctly.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('Indian mutual-fund schemes by name'), and the outcome ('get their scheme codes'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_mutual_fund_nav.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a user names a fund ... and you need its code before fetching the live NAV.' This provides clear context and implies when not to use (e.g., when you already have the code). No explicit exclusions or alternatives listed, but the use case is well-defined.

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