index_news_sentiment_scope

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes the data source (Chinascope via the research URL) and the return type (pandas DataFrame). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not mention update frequency, time range, columns, or any operational caveats, but it does provide the output format which is useful.

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 very brief (three lines) and front-loads the index name. The URL and return type are useful, but the duplicate mention of 'A股新闻情绪指数' wastes space and the overall structure is a stub rather than a well-organized explanation. It is concise but minimal, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it only provides the index name and return type, without explaining what the index represents, its market scope (A-share), how it is calculated, or the structure of the returned DataFrame. Given the rich annotations, the description does not need to repeat safety warnings, but it should offer more context to help the agent understand the data and use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, and the description correctly reflects this by not discussing any parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for parameter semantics.

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 a '数库-A股新闻情绪指数' (Chinascope A-share news sentiment index) and states the return type. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not differentiate from sibling index tools that may also provide sentiment or index data. The name itself suggests the function, and the Chinese title plus return specification 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention suitable use cases, prerequisites, or compare this to other sentiment indices or index-producing tools. An agent cannot determine whether this is the right tool without additional context.

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