bond_zh_cov_value_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame and provides the source URL, but it does not describe the actual data contents, potential pagination, or any other behavioral details. This adds some context beyond annotations but remains limited.

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 appropriately concise, containing only essential information: the source URL, the data category, and the parameter/return types. Each line serves a purpose, though the formatting is a bit fragmentary with newlines separating different elements.

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?

This is a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema. The description says it returns a pandas.DataFrame but does not specify the columns or the structure of the DataFrame. It also lacks examples of expected output or any caveats. Given the minimal schema and no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return value to be 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?

The schema has only a 'symbol' parameter with a default value and no description. The description adds meaning by explaining that symbol is the convertible bond code (可转债代码) and gives an example URL with a specific code (113527). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 states that this tool performs convertible bond value analysis (可转债价值分析) and specifically references premium rate analysis (溢价率分析). The name and description are specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like bond_zh_cov_info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention expected use cases, prerequisites, or situations where a different bond analysis tool would be more appropriate. The description only provides a URL and a function signature.

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