fund_report_industry_allocation_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about date format constraints, availability from 2017, and the pandas.DataFrame return type, which exceeds baseline without contradicting 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 compact and structured as a docstring with separate sections for source, parameters, and return type. However, the first line largely duplicates the tool name, and the URL could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description adequately explains input format and data source. Missing information includes specific output columns, any pagination or size limits, and what differentiates it from similar fund report tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 single parameter 'date' is fully explained in the description with allowed quarter-end format patterns and a start year, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. The schema only provides a default value, so the description adds critical semantics, though it doesn't explicitly mention the default or that the parameter is optional.

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 resource as CNINFO fund industry allocation data via the path '巨潮资讯-数据中心-专题统计-基金报表-基金行业配置', distinguishing it from sibling tools like asset allocation and stock holdings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'queries', making it more of a title than an action statement.

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 select this tool versus alternatives such as fund_report_asset_allocation_cninfo or fund_portfolio_industry_allocation_em. It only describes parameter constraints and does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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