get_fii_details

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get... details' without clarifying behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should disclose more behavioral context.

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: the first summarizes the tool's purpose and metrics, the second documents the parameter with examples. No extraneous information, efficiently front-loaded.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists (so return structure is documented), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. Some additional context (e.g., market or validity) could enhance completeness, but it's largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% meaning the description carries the burden. It adds value by specifying the ticker format and providing concrete examples (HGLG11, KNRI11, MXRF11), which aids correct invocation beyond the schema's type and title.

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 retrieves FII details, listing specific metrics like P/VP, dividend yield, NAV, and distributions. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on Real Estate Funds, contrasting with stock-focused tools like get_stock_quote or compare_stocks.

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 implies usage for FII (Real Estate Fund) data through the name and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Context from siblings suggests differentiation, but direct guidance is missing.

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