bond_info_detail_cm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a source URL and return type, but no behavioral context such as data freshness, network requirements, or limitations. It does not contradict 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 starts with a long hierarchical label, then a URL, then a docstring. Important information is buried and not front-loaded. It could be rewritten as a clear sentence like 'Get bond details by bond symbol, returning a pandas DataFrame.'

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what fields are in the returned DataFrame or how to interpret the bond details. It also does not mention the relationship between symbol and the URL's bondDefinedCode, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 description explicitly documents ':param symbol: 债券简称', clarifying that symbol means 'bond short name' beyond the raw schema. This is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%, and the default example gives a concrete format.

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 is a menu path ('数据-债券信息-信息查询-债券详情') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It implies retrieving bond details but does not explicitly say 'get details for a given bond symbol' or distinguish from sibling tools like bond_info_cm or bond_info_cm_query.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely a source path and docstring with no usage context.

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