get_top_mutual_funds

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 states the tool retrieves data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a list or single item, or includes pagination. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (one parameter with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are important for an AI agent to use it correctly without structured annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'sector' parameter well-documented via an enum list. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the sector is used to filter mutual funds, but it doesn't provide additional context like what 'top' means (e.g., by performance, assets) or how many funds are returned.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('top mutual funds in a specific sector'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_etfs' or 'get_top_companies', which might retrieve similar financial data but for different asset classes or entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_etfs' for ETFs or 'get_top_companies' for stocks. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a specific sector input, and doesn't mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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