bond_zh_cov_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond that, such as error handling, rate limits, or data source quirks. It does not contradict annotations, and the read-only nature is consistent.

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 URL, title, parameters, and return type. It is well-structured with :param tags and not overly verbose, though the URL placement at the top is somewhat noisy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says '可转债详情' (details), which is vague about the actual DataFrame structure and columns. Given the indicator parameter changes the returned data, this is a significant gap. The description also fails to clarify how this tool differs from the many convertible bond siblings, so an agent may struggle to select and use it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by providing Chinese names for both parameters and explicitly listing the valid indicator choices. However, it doesn't explain what each indicator value returns or provide format requirements for the symbol beyond an example default.

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 tool as retrieving convertible bond details (可转债详情) from East Money, with the URL indicating the specific source. It's clear about the resource but lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like bond_zh_cov_info_ths in the description text.

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 the many sibling bond tools. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The indicator choices are listed but no context is given for choosing among the many bond-related functions.

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