search_funds

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool finds funds and returns CIK, which is behaviorally relevant. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or describe any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. The word 'find' implies a safe read operation, but more transparency would be better.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place: it defines what the tool does, specifies the target entities, and gives a concrete use case. No unnecessary 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 search tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and workflow. However, the lack of explicit mention of the limit parameter and the absence of safety annotations leave minor gaps, but the overall context is adequately conveyed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by saying 'by name', which clarifies what the query searches for. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Find' and the specific resource 'institutional investment managers (hedge funds, mutual funds)' by name. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting the use case of looking up a fund's CIK before querying holdings, which is unique to this tool.

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 clear context and workflow guidance: 'Use this to look up a fund's CIK before querying its holdings.' This implies when to use it (when needing a CIK for fund holdings), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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