获取基金基本信息

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic purpose and does not mention data sources, update frequency, default parameter behavior, error handling, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and key output fields. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of the expected output. However, it lacks details about the return format and does not contextualize the tool among the many fund-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of '详细信息'.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'code' parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb '获取' (get) and resource '基金基本信息' (fund basic information), and lists concrete fields (name, type, scale, manager). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_nav, fund_holdings, and fund_ranking, which cover different aspects of fund data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling fund tools, leaving the agent without contextual cues for tool selection.

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