index_detail_hist_adjust_cni

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL (http://www.cnindex.com.cn/module/index-detail.html) and confirms the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as date ranges, data columns, or any limitations. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral 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 compact and contains no fluff: a title line, a reference URL, and a concise docstring with param/return/type. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the title and first docstring line are somewhat redundant. It is well under the size limit and front-loaded with the key term '历史调样'.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks details about the returned DataFrame structure (columns, index, date range) and any pagination or filtering options. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, but a user would still wonder what historical adjustment data looks like in practice. For a simple tool, this is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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 a single string parameter 'symbol' with default '399005' and no description. The description's docstring clarifies that 'symbol' is the 指数代码 (index code), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain accepted formats (e.g., 6-digit code vs. full prefix) or the meaning of the default value, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 states the tool retrieves '历史调样' (historical sample adjustments) for the 国证指数 (CNI Index), and the docstring clarifies it returns a pandas DataFrame with that data. It is specific about the resource (index samples) and the operation (historical adjustment retrieval), though the title is a noun phrase rather than an action verb. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like index_detail_cni, but the name and description make the purpose reasonably clear.

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. It does not mention that index_detail_cni might be for current sample details or that index_hist_cni covers historical index values, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The URL and docstring imply usage for a single index code, but there is no explicit context on selecting this over sibling tools.

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