Convertible Bond

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (non-market), implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a query tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loading the main purpose and enumerating two query methods without redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it concise and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the two query patterns and parameter dependencies. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the scope is limited enough that this is acceptable. The presence of detailed schema descriptions partially compensates for omitted output details.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate to the two query modes: issue type uses start_date/end_date, info type uses ts_code. This contextual mapping enhances understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'convertible bond non-market data' and explicitly lists two query methods (issue type by time range, info type by code). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on stocks, indices, or general financial data.

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 explains the two internal query modes (issue and info) and when each should be used (issue for time-range queries, info for code queries). However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., stock_data for market data). This lack of external comparison limits the score.

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