bond_composite_index_cbond

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame of the composite index, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data coverage, update frequency, or output structure.

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 well-structured with a title, URL, and param/return documentation. Although the parameter lists make it lengthy, each entry is necessary. It is front-loaded with the index name and source.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return structure in more detail. It only says '新综合指数' (new composite index) and rtype pandas.DataFrame, leaving the DataFrame columns and their meaning vague. Parameter coverage is thorough, but the return value semantics are under-specified.

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 input schema has two string parameters with defaults but no descriptions or enums. The description fully compensates by listing all valid choices for both indicator (17 options) and period (14 options), making it clear what values are accepted and what each represents.

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 exact target as the ChinaBond Composite Index (中债-综合指数), including the source URL and hierarchy. This distinguishes it from sibling bond index tools like bond_index_general_cbond and bond_new_composite_index_cbond.

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 for retrieving the ChinaBond Composite Index through its title and parameter documentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context about preferability.

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