bond_zh_hs_cov_pre_min

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and a pandas.DataFrame return type, but it does not disclose behaviors such as data availability windows, required symbol format, or potential failure modes. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured as a docstring: source, URL, parameters, return type. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter data-fetch tool.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the essential context: source, symbol parameter meaning, and return type (pandas DataFrame). It does lack detail on the DataFrame's columns or whether 'pre-market' is a fixed session, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter meaning. It describes symbol as '转债代码' (convertible bond code), which gives a minimal semantic, and the example URL hints at a format, but it does not specify the expected exchange-prefixed format (e.g., 'sh113570') or the range of valid symbols. This is only marginal compensation.

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 fetches pre-market time-share quotes for Chinese convertible bonds from Eastmoney, using the phrase '东方财富网-可转债-分时行情-盘前'. This clearly identifies the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly compare with the closely-related siblings bond_zh_hs_cov_min or bond_zh_hs_cov_spot, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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. The description contains only a source URL and parameter documentation, with no mention of when the pre-market variant is appropriate or when to use the regular/min/spot/daily sibling tools instead.

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