index_analysis_monthly_sw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the data source URL, the return type (pandas.DataFrame), and a key usage hint that the 'date' parameter values should be obtained by calling ak.index_analysis_week_month_sw(). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 uses a standard :param structure, with no redundant filler. The title is repeated in Chinese and English, which is slightly redundant, but the overall length is appropriate and information-dense.

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 data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, parameters, return type, and date acquisition method. It does not enumerate return columns or discuss pagination, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the safe read-only annotations. It feels complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 full responsibility for parameter meaning. It documents the 'symbol' choices (市场表征, 一级行业, 二级行业, 风格指数) and explains that 'date' is a query date obtained via another interface. This significantly adds value 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 title and first line state '申万宏源研究-指数分析-月报告' (Shenwan Hongyuan Research – Index Analysis – Monthly Report), clearly identifying the resource and the monthly scope. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the name implies a data-fetching operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (daily/weekly variants) via '月报告', though not explicitly.

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. It does not mention sibling tools such as index_analysis_daily_sw or index_analysis_weekly_sw, nor does it state scenarios for monthly versus daily/weekly analysis. There is no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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