bond_buy_back_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond a source URL, such as rate limits, data update frequency, or dependencies. The URL provides provenance but not operational 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, with a title, URL, and docstring, and is front-loaded with the title. The URL line is not well integrated into the description, and the docstring is presented in a standard but somewhat mechanical format. It is concise but could be more readable.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, the parameter's meaning, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame) via the docstring. It misses market-specific details (e.g., Shanghai vs. Shenzhen) and does not mention any filtering options or data scope, but it is adequate for a basic historical data fetcher.

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 description adds the meaning '质押式回购代码' (pledged repo code) to the symbol parameter, which is useful since the schema only provides type and default. However, it does not elaborate on valid code formats, examples beyond the default, or how the code maps to a specific market.

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 identifies the tool as providing historical pledged repo data from East Money, using the term '历史数据' (historical data) and a source URL. It specifies the resource type (质押式回购) and distinguishes from other bond tools by focusing on historical data. However, it lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'fetches' or 'returns'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bond_sh_buy_back_em or bond_sz_buy_back_em. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases beyond the generic historical data context.

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