index_analysis_weekly_sw

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the source URL and states that the return is a pandas.DataFrame, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, data coverage, or dependencies. The note about obtaining the date from another interface (ak.index_analysis_week_month_sw) is a useful contextual hint, but overall the description adds modest value beyond the 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, consisting of a title, a URL, and parameter/return docstrings. Each line serves a clear purpose, and there is no redundant filler. The only minor issue is that the Chinese title and URL might be unnecessary for execution, but they add source context. Overall, the structure is clean and appropriately sized.

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?

The complete context is insufficient. There is no output schema, so the description should detail the DataFrame's columns or content, but it merely states '指数分析' (index analysis), which is tautological. It also does not explain how to choose valid dates for weekly data or how this tool differs from its siblings, leaving the agent uncertain about the output structure and usage boundaries.

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 schema provides no descriptions, leaving a 0% coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It lists the exact allowed values for symbol (e.g., '市场表征', '一级行业', '二级行业', '风格指数') and specifies the date format with an example (20221104). This compensates well for the schema gap, though the date semantics are somewhat vague (e.g., what date represents for a weekly report).

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 opens with the title '申万宏源研究-指数分析-周报告' (Shenwan Hongyuan Research Index Analysis Weekly Report), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving weekly SW index analysis data. The parameter list and return type further clarify the function. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like index_analysis_daily_sw or index_analysis_monthly_sw, so it only earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 implies the tool is for weekly reports through its title and name, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other index analysis tools. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the '周报告' label, making this an implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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