bond_zh_hs_cov_min

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the return type (pandas.DataFrame), the allowed period values (1, 5, 15, 30, 60), and adjustment choices (qfq, hfq). 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 uses a standard docstring format with a clear title, source URL, parameter list, and return type. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The repeated :param/:type pairs are somewhat verbose but each adds value; there is no redundant filler.

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 appropriately specifies the return as pandas.DataFrame. It covers all parameters and their choices. It could be more complete by stating that symbol should include an exchange prefix (e.g., 'sz128039') and clarifying the meaning of qfq/hfq, but the current level is sufficient for a simple data retrieval tool with read-only annotations.

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 carries the full burden. It explains all five parameters: symbol (转债代码), period (choice of 1/5/15/30/60), adjust (choice of '', qfq, hfq), start_date (开始日期), and end_date (结束日期). It also specifies the return type. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 retrieving convertible bond intraday time-sharing quotes from 东方财富网 (East Money). The phrase '分时行情' specifies the data type and differentiates it from siblings like bond_zh_hs_cov_daily or bond_zh_hs_cov_spot, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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. It does not mention that this is for minute-level data, nor does it suggest using bond_zh_hs_cov_daily for daily data. Given the large number of bond-related sibling tools, the absence of any usage direction is a clear gap.

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