fund_cf_em

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 useful behavioral details like pagination ('page: -1 表示全部页面') and that empty typ means all fund types ('空串表示全部'), plus the return type. There is no contradiction 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 is structured as a docstring with a title, URL, and parameter list. It is longer than ideal, but each line conveys essential information given the lack of schema descriptions; the URL and title are mildly redundant with the annotation title but not wasteful.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, all well-explained, and a clear return type (pandas.DataFrame). With no output schema, the description adequately covers the data source and query mechanics, though it does not enumerate DataFrame columns or discuss edge cases like empty results.

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 for parameters. It thoroughly documents all five parameters: year, typ with a complete enum list and meaning of empty string, rank with Chinese labels for each enum, sort with asc/desc choices, and page with the -1 sentinel. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 identifies the resource as '基金拆分' (fund split) from 天天基金网 and the :return: field confirms it returns a pandas DataFrame of fund split data. The query verb is implied through parameter semantics like '查询年份' and '请求第page页数据', making the purpose clear, though no imperative statement like 'Get' or 'List' is explicitly 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fund_fh_em or fund_etf_dividend_sina. It does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer from the Chinese title alone.

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