get_etf_option_months

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety ambiguity exists. The description adds the output type (list of months) but does not disclose format, sorting, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond what is implied by the annotation.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one documented enum parameter, and the description adequately states the return type (contract months list). However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from specifying the expected format (e.g., YYYYMM strings) or clarifying how it differs from the similarly named get_etf_option_expire_day.

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 description coverage is 100% with the enum and description for the single parameter 'cate' fully explaining its allowed values. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 ('获取') and the resource ('ETF 期权可用合约月份列表'), specifying the result as a list of contract months. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools like get_etf_option_expire_day, but the '月份' (months) wording is clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for retrieving ETF option contract months, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools such as get_etf_option_expire_day or get_etf_option_daily_kline.

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