related_funds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the product scope, that unavailable per-stock exposure is omitted rather than fabricated, and that querying a fund about itself returns an empty list with an explanatory note. It still omits read-only status and output shape, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 main idea is front-loaded, and the description packs scope, exclusions, and an edge case into a few sentences. Some phrasing is rhetorical or dense, but there is little actual waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it returns, what it excludes, and how a self-reference behaves. It does not define the exact response payload, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 schema has only a 'symbol' title with 0% description coverage. The description relates symbol to 'one company' and 'a name,' which conveys its semantic role but does not specify identifier format, examples, or accepted ticker types. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the bare 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 identifies a specific retrieval goal: find the funds built on one underlying company, including leveraged/inverse single-stock, option-income, and buffered products. It explicitly contrasts itself with fund_profile, making it clearly distinguishable from a key sibling.

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?

It says this is 'the opposite question to fund_profile,' giving an explicit alternative and what each tool answers. It also states what this tool is NOT for — ordinary fund holdings of a stock — and explains that such exposure is absent rather than guessed, plus the self-query edge case.

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