index_zh_a_hist_min_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like date format requirements, data granularity, or potential pagination. With annotations covering the safety aspects, this is adequate 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 a structured docstring with a clear title, source URL, param/type/return annotations. It is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first line. The param lines are repetitive but add value by documenting each field.

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 must explain the return data, but it only says '每日分时行情' (daily minute quotes) without describing columns, how periods map to data granularity, or how start/end dates affect the result. It also lacks details like data coverage, timezone, or any access limitations. This is insufficient for a data-returning tool.

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 by explaining each parameter: symbol is the index code, period lists valid choices {'1','5','15','30','60'}, and start_date/end_date are start/end dates. This is critical because the schema only shows defaults and types. However, the description does not specify the exact date-time format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as returning daily minute-level quotes for indices from Eastmoney, as evidenced by '东方财富网-指数数据-每日分时行情'. This is specific about the resource (index data) and data type, and the URL provides source context. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', making it slightly less direct than an action-oriented description.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling index tools (e.g., index_zh_a_hist for daily data), but the description does not mention when this minute-level tool is appropriate or what the data represents (e.g., intraday time-sharing).

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