Mofid's own funds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description's real contribution is the repeated warning that no NAV or price is included — useful behavioural context about missing data. It says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether the 19-fund set is fixed or can change.

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 'no NAV or price' point is asserted three times in three consecutive sentences, and the 'Source: Mofid only' line partially duplicates the opening sentence. The front-loaded first sentence is strong, but roughly half the text is repetition that crowds out genuinely new information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, and the boundary against price-oriented siblings — enough to call it correctly. What is missing is only marginal: whether records are static reference data or periodically refreshed.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It does implicitly confirm the call is unfiltered (no selector for fund type or risk), which saves an agent from hunting for a filter argument.

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 the 19 investment funds managed under the Mofid brand'), names representative funds, and enumerates the attributes returned (type, risk level, dividend policy, asset mix). It also distinguishes itself from br_etfs, br_stock and br_fund, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: use this for the Mofid marketing catalogue, but use br_etfs or br_stock for prices and NAV and br_fund for Agah funds. The only mild gap is that it names 'br_stock' while a sibling is 'br_stocks', which could cause a routing slip.

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