index_hist_fund_sw

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 description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, which are useful, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like date range limits, pagination, or data granularity beyond what the annotations imply.

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 a compact docstring with title, URL, param list, and return type; every line serves a purpose and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the identifying title, making it easy to scan, though the URL is long and not strictly necessary.

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 historical data retrieval with two params and no output schema, the description gives the return type and param semantics but omits details like valid period values, output columns, and any data coverage limitations. Given the large sibling set, it also lacks positioning guidance, leaving the agent to guess when to choose this tool over similar ones.

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 description provides basic param meanings (symbol = 基金指数代码, period = 周期) and a concrete example URL with code=807100, giving more than the schema's bare names. However, it doesn't specify allowed period values (e.g., day/week/month), and the '周期' description is too vague to fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool as fetching historical quotes for Shenwan fund indices (申万宏源研究-申万指数-指数发布-基金指数-历史行情), with a source URL and param docs. It distinguishes from siblings like index_hist_sw by focusing specifically on fund indices, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as index_hist_sw or index_realtime_sw. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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