index_option_100etf_qvix

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the return type (DataFrame) and a source URL, which doesn't disclose side effects or limitations.

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 (three lines), but it repeats the same phrase '深证100ETF 期权波动率指数 QVIX' twice. It could be more concise, but it's not overly verbose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only index data retriever, the description provides the resource, return type, and source URL. It lacks details about the DataFrame columns, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers everything. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 (Shenzhen 100 ETF options volatility index QVIX) and implies retrieval via ':return:'. It distinguishes from sibling QVIX tools (e.g., 300ETF, 50ETF) by the specific '100ETF' qualifier.

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 context is clear: this tool is specifically for the 100ETF QVIX index. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the name and description make the intended use obvious.

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