bond_info_cm_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, but does not describe output structure or any edge cases. No contradictions with annotations.

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 mixes a long Chinese title, a URL, and docstring-style parameter/return fields. It is somewhat redundant (the phrase 查询相关指标的参数 appears both in the header and the return description). The structure is acceptable but not tightly organized.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and parameter choices. However, it does not explain what the returned DataFrame contains or how the output might be used in conjunction with other bond tools. The behavior is simple enough that this is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It explicitly lists the valid choices for symbol: {主承销商, 债券类型, 息票类型, 发行年份, 评级等级}, which is critical since the schema has no enums. It does not explain the meaning of each indicator or output format beyond the names, but the choices are self-explanatory.

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 states the tool queries parameters for indicators from China Foreign Exchange Trade System (中国外汇交易中心暨全国银行间同业拆借中心). The listed symbol choices (主承销商, 债券类型, etc.) clarify what kinds of parameters are returned. It is fairly specific but could be clearer that it is a helper for retrieving valid index parameter values, and the Chinese-language title may be less informative for non-Chinese users.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it can be used to obtain valid symbol values for sibling tools like bond_info_cm or bond_info_detail_cm. The URL provides a source but not usage context.

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