index_bloomberg_billionaires_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of data granularity, pagination, units, rate limits, or any side effects. The URL is a source link but does not disclose behavioral traits.

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 fragmented: a bare title line, a URL, and a docstring-style parameter/return spec. There is no clear opening sentence that states the tool's function. While the length is short, the information is not structured or front-loaded, making it harder for an agent to quickly parse the purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value clearly. It only states '彭博亿万富豪指数历史数据' and 'pandas.DataFrame', but does not describe columns, row content, or the year range. It also omits whether the data reflects rankings, net worth figures, or other metrics. This leaves the tool's output ambiguous.

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 has no description for 'year', so the description adds value by indicating it is a choice of specific years ('2021', '2019', '2018', ...'). However, the list is incomplete and the ellipsis leaves ambiguity about valid values. The type (str) is also restated, but the allowed-value hint is useful. It does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool name and return type clearly indicate it returns historical Bloomberg Billionaires Index data ('彭博亿万富豪指数历史数据'). The description includes the source URL and parameter documentation, making the purpose evident. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'index_bloomberg_billionaires' (likely non-historical), so it is clear but not perfectly specified.

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 the sibling index_bloomberg_billionaires for current data, nor any other related tools. There is no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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