index_eri

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the data source URL and parameter choices, but does not disclose response details, data freshness, or failure modes. Given the annotations, the description provides moderate additional context but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 follows a standard docstring structure with title, URL, parameter, and return sections. It front-loads the index name and source. Minor redundancy exists with the return line repeating the index name, but overall it is well-organized and concise.

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 read-only index tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description includes the source URL, parameter choices, and return type (pandas.DataFrame). It lacks contextual details such as data history or column descriptions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of strong annotations, this is largely complete. A brief note on data frequency or time range would elevate it further.

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 input schema has no property description for 'symbol' (0% coverage), but the description explicitly defines valid values as {'月度', '季度'} and its type. This is essential information that compensates for the schema gap. It could further elaborate on the meaning of the values (e.g., monthly/quarterly index data) but is already helpful beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource as the Zhejiang Province Pollution Discharge Right Trading Index (浙江省排污权交易指数) and provides a source URL (https://zs.zjpwq.net). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', the purpose is evident and distinct from sibling index tools by region and index type. A verb would make it clearer, but the naming and context suffice.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only documents parameter choices (月度/季度) and the return type, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or different use cases. For a data retrieval tool among many similar index tools, this lack of usage differentiation is a notable gap.

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