index_ai_cx

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 agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds a source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose details like data granularity, update frequency, or column contents.

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 very short (three lines) and front-loaded with the resource name and URL, followed by return annotations. It contains no fluff, though the URL may be of marginal value and the structure reads like a docstring rather than prose.

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, zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimal but identifiable purpose via the index name and return type. However, it lacks important context such as the data's time range, scope, or DataFrame columns, leaving gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description augments this by stating the return value and type, which is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly names the resource ('AI策略指数' from 财新数据) and provides a source URL, making the tool's intent clear. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the ':return:' annotation confirms it returns the index. It differentiates from sibling index tools by specifying the AI strategy index.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., index_si_cx or other index_*_cx variants). There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or exclusions.

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