drewry_wci_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what data is fetched, frequency, or any potential side effects beyond what annotations already imply, which is acceptable given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 relatively short, with the key information appearing early: the Chinese title, the source URL, and parameter documentation. The docstring-like format is clear and structured, though the URL line is somewhat extraneous. Overall, it is efficient and compact.

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 read-only index tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the parameter choices and return type but does not describe the DataFrame's columns, time range, or data granularity. This is a moderate gap, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an explicit symbol enumeration make it minimally viable.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'symbol' with no description or enum. The description explicitly enumerates valid symbol values ('composite', 'shanghai-rotterdam', etc.) and specifies the type as str, providing meaningful information beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning of each route, but the enumeration is valuable for correct invocation.

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 'Drewry 集装箱指数' which identifies the resource (Drewry Container Index) but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. It is clearer than a pure tautology because it names the specific index, yet it does not differentiate from sibling shipping index tools beyond the tool name. The symbol choices provide some context, but the overall purpose is implied 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative shipping index tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description only lists symbol options, providing no usage context. An agent would not know why to choose this over, for example, macro_shipping_bdi.

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