Search mutual fund schemes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: data comes from AMFI's daily NAV file, results may include null NAV when a scheme did not report that day, and the returned content includes ISINs and latest NAV. This helps the agent interpret the open-world, daily-updated nature of the data.

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?

Three concise sentences each earn their place: the first defines scope and source, the second lists returned fields and the downstream tool, and the third discloses the null-NAV edge case. Information is front-loaded with no filler.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers source, scale, searchable attributes, returned fields, downstream usage, and a data-quality caveat. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly and handle results sensibly.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that 'query' matches name, AMC or category, matching the schema's own description, but it does not add new parameter-level details. The 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Search all ~14,000 Indian mutual fund schemes'), defines the searchable dimensions (name, AMC or category), and names the data source (AMFI's daily industry NAV file). It clearly differentiates itself by listing the returned fields and routing the scheme_code to mf_nav_history, distinguishing it from siblings like mf_scheme or mf_nav_history.

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?

The description provides a clear usage workflow: use it to discover schemes by name/AMC/category, then pass the returned scheme_code to mf_nav_history. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or negative cases ('do not use when...'), but the routing instruction and scope make the intended context clear.

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