bond_gb_zh_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the source URL and the list of valid symbols, which is useful, but it does not disclose output structure, data granularity (historical vs. current), or any additional behavioral traits.

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 a compact docstring with a title, URL, and param/return sections. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, containing no waste, though the Chinese wording is somewhat terse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return structure. It only states a DataFrame of yield market data without specifying columns or whether it's historical or current. The URL points to the data source page, which helps, but the description is not fully self-contained.

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 schema has no enum or description for the symbol parameter, and the description compensates by enumerating all valid choices (中国1年期国债 through 中国30年期国债). This provides the agent the necessary vocabulary to invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't explain the meaning of the values (e.g., maturity periods).

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 Sina Finance China treasury bond yield market data, with a specific resource and source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling bond yield tools like bond_china_yield, relying on the name for distinction.

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_china_yield or bond_zh_us_rate. Usage is implied from the parameter list and return type, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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