Fund details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns a complete snapshot with a specific field set, which is useful behavioral context, though it says nothing about payload size or pagination for such a broad record.

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, no filler: the first defines scope and payload, the second routes to alternatives. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration carries the return-value burden and does it well, and the dependency on a prior search is stated. Minor gap: nothing describes the effect of on_date (historical snapshot) or the default behaviour of group_id, relying entirely on the schema for those.

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%, so reg_no, on_date and group_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces provenance of reg_no ('after fp_search_funds'), adding no syntax or semantics for the optional on_date or group_id beyond what the schema states. 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 ('Get one fund in full') and enumerates the content returned (NAV, returns, size, allocation, investors, manager, auditor, custodian, website). This clearly distinguishes it from fp_search_funds (list) and fp_history (series) without needing to open a schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisite ('Use after fp_search_funds') and explicit routing away from two siblings: 'For a price series use fp_history; to put several side by side use fp_compare.' The when-to-use and alternatives are both named.

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