futures_hog_cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not disclose what the data contains, whether it is historical or real-time, or any quirks. The URL is unexplained. With annotations present, the description adds minimal value.

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 short but repetitive, repeating '玄田数据-成本维度' three times (in the title, the source line, and the return doc). The docstring structure is standard, but the URL is unexplained and the repeated content does not earn its place.

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, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the cost dimension data contains, how it relates to hog futures, or what makes it distinct from sibling tools. There is no output schema, so the description should explain return content but only gives a generic return type. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description explicitly lists the allowed values for the `symbol` parameter: {"玉米", "豆粕", "二元母猪价格", "仔猪价格"}. This is crucial because the input schema does not include an enum or description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well for parameter semantics, though it could further explain what each symbol represents in the context of 'cost'.

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 is essentially a Chinese title '玄田数据-成本维度' (Xuandian Data - Cost Dimension) without any verb or action. It does not state what the tool does, such as 'retrieves cost data for hog futures'. The resource is implied from the tool name, but the description restates the title in the return line, making it largely tautological.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like futures_hog_core or futures_hog_supply. The description only provides a data source URL and parameter documentation but no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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