index_option_300index_qvix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, but doesn't disclose behavioral nuances like data frequency, columns, or potential delays. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 to-the-point, but it's repetitive (the same Chinese phrase appears twice) and includes a raw URL without context. It's not well-structured, mixing the title, URL, and docstring-style returns. It earns a middling score because it's compact but inefficient.

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 no-parameter data retrieval tool, the description provides the essential information: what it returns (a DataFrame) and a source. However, it doesn't describe the DataFrame's contents or columns, and with no output schema, that's a gap. The annotations cover the read-only aspect, but the description could be more complete about the data's nature.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; there are none. It does specify the return type, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. No parameter documentation is required here.

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: the QVIX (volatility index) for CSI 300 index options. It uses a specific noun phrase and provides a source URL, making the tool's purpose intelligible. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and doesn't distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as index_option_300etf_qvix.

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 vs. alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is specifically for the CSI 300 index options (as opposed to ETF options or other index options) or any selection criteria. It simply states what it is without usage context.

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