amac_person_bond_org_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the official source URL and indicates it is a public information disclosure, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as columns, pagination, or update behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, presenting the source category, URL, and return type in a scannable format. The ':return:' line repeats the content in the first line, but overall it remains appropriately sized.

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 zero-parameter public data listing backed by strong annotations, the source URL and return type provide sufficient context. It does not enumerate returned fields, but the low complexity makes that less critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter descriptions are necessary. The input schema fully defines the empty parameter set.

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 specifies the resource: AMAC public disclosure of bond investment trading related personnel, including the source URL and return type. It also differentiates from the sibling amac_person_fund_org_list by explicitly stating '债券投资交易相关人员公示'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus related AMAC personnel, fund, or bond disclosure tools. The description only states the data source and return value, leaving usage decisions to inference from the tool name.

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