India Mutual Fund Scheme Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. Description adds valuable context beyond annotations: partial match behavior with concrete examples, data source (MFAPI), license (MIT), and no authentication required. No contradictions found.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by return value, usage direction, partial-match capability, and source/license info. Every sentence earns its place and the description is easy to parse.

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 read-only search tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the results (linking to NAV tools), and important operational details (no auth, data source). The output schema and annotations cover the rest, so no missing information affects correct agent use.

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 100% for both query and limit parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description elevates this by providing illustrative examples ("HDFC" returns all HDFC schemes; "mid cap" returns all mid-cap funds) and explicitly states partial match support, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action (search), the resource (37,000+ AMFI-registered India mutual fund schemes), and the return value (scheme codes, names, ISIN identifiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mfapi.schemes.list by specifying keyword-based search and links to NAV retrieval tools.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (when searching by name keyword) and how to follow up with NAV tools ("Use the returned scheme_code to fetch current or historical NAV data"). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like mfapi.schemes.list, but the distinction is implicit via sibling names and the description's focus on search.

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