query_trading_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output format (each row contains effective range/source/confidence), confidence levels, and the special behavior for commodity_futures. It does not mention side effects like overwriting the output file, or potential error cases, but for a read-only query tool this is acceptable. It also does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of querying rules implies it.

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 dense paragraph but packs useful information: what is queried, the as_of semantics, output columns, confidence levels, special market behavior, and file output. It is slightly long but every sentence carries substantive info, and key points are 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?

For a tool with 4 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics well: what it returns, how as_of works, and the special commodity_futures case. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior or whether the output file is overwritten, but these are minor. The confidence levels and market-specific behaviors are sufficiently explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the meaning of 'as_of' (matching effective interval, default today) and elaborating on the 'market' enum values (e.g., cffex = 股指期货/期权品种). It also explains the 'parameter' filter is case-insensitive substring on parameter column. This goes beyond schema 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 queries Chinese trading rules parameters (stamp tax, transfer fees, price limits, T+1, margin rates, etc.) with an effective-date matching by 'as_of'. It distinguishes itself from the many query_* siblings by specifying the domain (trading rules) and the output (CSV file). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 default behavior (default to today when as_of is not provided) and gives a specific note for market=commodity_futures (returns a guidance row for exchange settlement parameters). It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the specialized domain and output make the usage context fairly clear.

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