bond_cb_jsl

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds a critical behavioral detail: it requires a browser cookie for invocation, which is not captured by the annotations. This is significant context for the agent, though it does not explain why the cookie is needed or what happens if it is absent.

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 concise and includes the URL, parameter, and return type, but it is formatted as a docstring with tags rather than a clear natural-language explanation. It is not bloated, but it lacks a clear imperative statement of purpose.

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 single optional parameter and clear annotations, the description covers the basic invocation details. However, it does not describe the contents of the returned DataFrame, any authentication nuances, or how the tool behaves with or without the cookie, which could leave the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the only semantic meaning for the cookie parameter, stating it is a browser cookie to input. This is helpful, but it omits details such as whether the cookie is optional, its format, or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 simply repeats the tool's name ('集思录可转债') and provides a URL, without any action verb or explicit statement of what the tool does. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like bond_cb_index_jsl or bond_cb_adj_logs_jsl, leaving the agent to infer its function.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the cookie parameter. It only states the resource source, making it difficult for an agent to decide among the many bond-related tools.

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