option_cffex_hs300_list_sina

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies that the first returned contract is the main contract and that coverage currently includes only HS300 and CSI1000 indices. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it includes some redundancy (repeating '所有合约' multiple times) and a slightly confusing sentence about current coverage. Overall, it is concise but could be cleaner.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the data source, market, index, and the meaning of the first element. It does not describe the structure of the returned dict, but that is not necessary for tool selection given the simple nature of the operation.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter information.

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 states it returns all contracts for the HS300 index from CFFEX via Sina Finance, and specifically notes that the first contract is the main contract. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like option_cffex_hs300_daily_sina and option_cffex_hs300_spot_sina.

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 implies usage by naming the index (HS300) and noting current coverage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternative list tools (e.g., option_cffex_zz1000_list_sina) or provide exclusions. Usage context is only inferred from the tool name and the coverage note.

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