Fund types and averages

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only listing, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: returns are averages expressed as percent per type and allocation is an average share across stock/bond/cash/deposit, which is non-obvious interpretation guidance.

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?

Purpose and the sibling routing instruction are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler. The final sentence about averages and allocation is dense but carries genuine interpretation value for the returned numbers.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value explanation, and it does so for the two non-obvious fields (returns as average percent, allocation as average share). It stops short of enumerating the full record shape, but for a small reference listing that is acceptable.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't waste words on inputs.

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 ('List fund types') and enumerates the returned metrics (fund counts, total size, average returns) plus example type names. An agent can tell this is the reference/lookup tool rather than a search or detail tool.

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 says 'Use first to learn the type ids for fp_search_funds', naming the sibling and the ordering dependency, and gives a concrete question-shaped use case. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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