index_detail_hist_cni

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and provides the source URL, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any limitations on date range, pagination, or data scope beyond the parameter, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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 short and includes essential info: name, source URL, parameter, return type. It is structured like a docstring, which is easy to parse. The URL line could be integrated more cleanly, but overall it is concise with no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, good annotations), the description is nearly complete. It tells the user what data is returned (historical samples as DataFrame), how to identify the index (symbol code), and where the data comes from. The only missing piece is explicit mention of null/empty behavior or default interpretation, but this is not critical for a basic retrieval 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?

The schema has one parameter (symbol) with no description in the schema itself (coverage 0%). The description compensates with a clear docstring: ':param symbol: 指数代码; "399001"' and ':type symbol: str', including an example value. This fully explains the parameter's meaning and format, which is exactly what the agent needs.

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 retrieves historical sample details for a CNI index, with a specific URL and example index code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_detail_cni by the term '历史样本' (historical samples) in both the title and description, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar ones like index_detail_cni or index_detail_hist_adjust_cni. The description implies historical data usage via the URL and naming, but lacks clear context or exclusions. Given the large set of similar index tools, more specific usage guidance is needed.

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