index_option_500etf_qvix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds a return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, which is some value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like data frequency, historical range, or update schedule, so it only partially enhances transparency.

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 but redundant: the first line repeats the title, and the ':return:' line repeats the same phrase. The URL adds some value but is not accompanied by any explanatory structure. It is under-specified rather than concise, with no clear sentence structure or front-loaded purpose.

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?

Given the large number of sibling QVIX tools, this description is incomplete. It does not mention that it likely provides daily QVIX data versus the _min_ variants, nor does it specify any time range, data source characteristics, or update frequency. The presence of no output schema increases the need for descriptive detail, which is lacking.

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 zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object and 100% coverage. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description could explicitly state 'no parameters' but that is already clear.

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 is essentially a tautology: '500 ETF 期权波动率指数 QVIX' restates the tool name and title without any verb or action. It identifies the data resource but does not describe what the tool does beyond that, and it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like index_option_500etf_min_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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about daily vs. minute data, or how this differs from the many sibling QVIX tools. There is no mention of exclusions or related tools.

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