index_csindex_all

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful caveat about the unknown data update time (Note: 不知道数据更新时间), which is valuable transparency beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects such as network requirements, potential delays, or pagination, leaving the description to carry only a modest amount of extra context.

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 concise, with the title and URL upfront, followed by the return type and a note. It avoids fluff and directly states the core purpose. The URL is a bit long, but it is useful for identifying the source. The structure is clean and front-loaded, though the Chinese text might be slightly less accessible to English-only agents.

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 no-parameter list retrieval tool, the description covers the basics: source, return type, and a caveat. However, it lacks details about the DataFrame contents (e.g., columns, number of rows, index code naming conventions) which would help the agent use the output correctly. Given the absence of an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value and falls short of being fully complete.

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, so the schema is empty and the description needs no parameter explanations. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline score of 4, and the description correctly does not invent unnecessary parameter details. The return type is specified, adding clarity about the output.

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 clearly states it returns the latest index list from the CSIndex website (中证指数网站), including a URL and the return type as a pandas DataFrame. It distinguishes itself from similar index tools by explicitly naming the source (csindex.com.cn) and the scope (all indices). However, the verb 'returns' is only implied in the docstring, not explicitly stated as a primary action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_all_cni or stock_zh_index_hist_csindex. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. The description is purely functional with no contextual usage hints.

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