bond_china_yield

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URLs, the explicit date range constraint, and the return type as pandas.DataFrame. It does not describe pagination or output columns, but with annotations, this is a modest addition without contradictions.

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: a title, two URLs, a note, and parameter/return docstrings. It is structured and avoids excessive length. The URLs add useful provenance, though the second URL is a long example that could be trimmed.

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 simple two-parameter query tool, the description covers the basic data source and return type. However, it fails to specify the accepted date format (schema defaults use YYYYMMDD while the example URL uses YYYY-MM-DD), and the return line is garbled. The absence of output schema makes the lack of column details a notable gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides docstrings for start_date and end_date, explaining that each defines a one-year window, and notes the interval must be less than a year. However, the wording is somewhat confusing and repetitive, and it does not clarify the date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD vs YYYY-MM-DD).

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 identifies the resource as China Bond Information Network's treasury and other bond yield curves, and the URL containing 'historyQuery' implies a query operation. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'query', making the action slightly implicit. It is clearly distinguished from sibling bond tools that focus on other data types.

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 a specific constraint that end_date minus start_date should be less than one year, which guides parameter usage. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling bond tools or the intended scenarios. Usage is implied by the title and date parameters rather than explicitly stated.

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