基金基本信息：获取基金分类、基金标签、所属公司、基金经理

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is retrieved without describing how the tool behaves—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, its response format, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

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 a single, concise sentence that matches the title, but it is overly terse and lacks front-loaded value. While it avoids redundancy, it under-specifies by not elaborating on purpose or usage, making it less helpful than it could be with minimal additional detail.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to provide necessary behavioral context or usage guidelines, which are crucial for effective tool invocation despite the structured data support.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' clearly documented as accepting a fund code or name. The description does not add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema already provides adequate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'fundPerformance' or 'fundUnderAssets', leaving the agent without context for tool selection in this domain.

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