获取基金债券持仓

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the 12-hour cache and quarterly update pattern, which sets expectations about data freshness. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential absence of data for certain funds, or how the optional date affects results beyond what the schema already says.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the source and resource, lists the key returned fields, and notes caching and update cadence. Every clause carries useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the data source, the specific resource type, the returned fields, and data freshness. Without an output schema, it does not document exact response structure, but the listed return fields give an agent enough context to invoke the tool confidently. Minor missing details like behavior for unsupported fund codes are acceptable gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents 'code' and 'date' adequately. The tool description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does confirm that the returned data focuses on bond holdings rather than other fund data.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it returns fund bond holdings data from 天天基金网, including bond code, name, proportion of net value, and market value. This is distinct enough from general fund tools like fund_holdings due to the explicit '债券持仓' focus, though it does not directly name sibling 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when fund bond holdings are needed, as indicated by '债券持仓'. It provides data-source and freshness context ('缓存12h，季度更新'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like fund_holdings or fund_asset_allocation, nor any exclusions.

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