基金实体解析：将基金简称、别称，解析为标准基金代码、名称、交易市场（SH：沪市，SZ：深市，OF：场外）

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the transformation behavior without disclosing traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without waste. It could be slightly more structured by separating input/output details, but it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 moderate complexity (parsing aliases), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on limitations or integration with siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it accepts fund names or codes, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'guessStockCode' for stocks or 'fundBasicInfo' for pre-known codes, leaving usage context implied at best.

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