amac_member_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame and identifies the source URL, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or data volume. This is acceptable given annotations, but not rich.

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 short and to the point, containing only the tool name, source URL, and return type. It is not front-loaded in a structured way but avoids redundancy. Slightly more structure could help, but it earns a high score for brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the DataFrame contains. It says '会员机构综合查询' (comprehensive member institution query), which gives a general idea but lacks column names or a summary of fields. For a no-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to document and the description correctly implies a full dataset fetch.

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 this tool performs a comprehensive query of member institutions from the AMAC (China Securities Investment Fund Industry Association), with a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like amac_member_sub_info by focusing on the top-level 'member institution' query.

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 usage – when one needs AMAC member institution information – and provides the data source URL. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer.

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