fund_individual_basic_info_xq

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 clear. The description adds the data source endpoint and return type but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits or error behavior; the bar for extra context is low but not fully met.

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 docstring is compact and well-structured, including title, URL, params, and return type. The example URL is a minor extra but informative. No redundant content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic idea of the return type (DataFrame) and key parameters, but it doesn't specify what fields the fund information contains or offer any usage context. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter docs are essential. It explains symbol as fund code and timeout as None or a positive float, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the purpose of timeout is not elaborated (e.g., HTTP timeout), so it's not fully complete.

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 it provides 雪球基金-基金详情 (Snowball Fund details) and returns a pandas DataFrame, indicating it fetches basic fund information for a given fund code. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fund_individual_detail_info_xq, so it lacks differentiation.

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 other fund-related tools. The description only provides a data source URL and parameter documentation, with no mention of alternatives or conditions for use.

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