index_code_id_map_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds only the source URL and return type 'dict' but no behavioral details such as the mapping direction, data freshness, or any caveats. It does not contradict 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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It consists of a title, a URL, and a return type annotation, with no explanatory sentence about what the tool actually returns or how it behaves.

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?

Given the simple no-parameter interface, the description is still incomplete because it fails to specify the structure of the returned dict, exactly what codes are included, or how the mapping works. This is critical for an agent to know whether to invoke this 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document. The description is not required to add parameter semantics; baseline 4 for no-param tools.

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 title (东方财富-股票和市场代码) and a return type note, not a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explain that this tool maps index codes to IDs, using 'stock and market codes' instead, which is ambiguous and does not distinguish it from many sibling index/stock tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 400 sibling tools, no context is given for when a mapping of codes is needed or what specific use case it serves.

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