index_zh_a_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds source (East Money) and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not mention rate limits, date format quirks, or potential data gaps. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the title. The docstring format is standard and includes a URL. No redundant sentences, though the format is more code-oriented than natural language.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what columns are returned and the meaning of '行情数据'. It only says the return type is pandas.DataFrame. The tool is a simple historical data fetcher, but the lack of details about date format, data fields, and potential edge cases makes it insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with parameter names, types, and Chinese labels: symbol is '指数代码', start/end dates are clearly start and end dates, and period lists valid choices {'daily', 'weekly', 'monthly'}. However, date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) is not explicitly stated, and the default end_date '22220101' appears anomalous, limiting clarity.

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 (East Money China stock index) and the nature of the data (market data). The URL adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly state 'retrieve historical data' and does not differentiate from sibling index tools like index_zh_a_hist_min_em.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for daily/weekly/monthly historical index data, nor does it exclude intraday or spot data. The parameter list implies usage but provides no selection criteria.

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