index_hist_cni

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose details like column structure, pagination, or date handling, so it provides 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 compact and follows a standard docstring pattern: title, source URL, params, and return type. It is front-loaded with the data type and includes only necessary lines, though the title is redundant with the tool name.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should describe what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., OHLCV columns), but it only says 'index historical market data.' It also doesn't clarify index code format or date boundaries, making the tool under-specified for a data-fetching function.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters; it does give Chinese labels for symbol (指数代码), start_date (开始时间), and end_date (结束时间). Yet it omits format details such as YYYYMMDD (implied by the defaults) and doesn't explain any constraints, leaving 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 clearly indicates that this tool provides historical index market data (指数历史行情数据) and includes a source URL identifying cnindex.com.cn. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling index history tools like index_global_hist_em or index_detail_hist_cni.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling index-data tools. It lacks alternatives, exclusions, or contextual prerequisites such as 'use for CNI indices' or 'not for global indices.'

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