option_commodity_contract_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe query. The description adds the concrete return structure (dict mapping symbol to list of contract codes) and a real example, giving the agent useful context about response shape beyond the 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 functional but somewhat cluttered: a Chinese heading, a URL, and docstring-style parameter/return lines. It is not overly long, but the structure could be cleaner with an English summary and less repetition.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lists all valid symbols and provides an example return value. Missing are notes about the default value (though present in schema) and how the resulting contract codes might be used as inputs for other option tools.

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 coverage is 0% (no description for the symbol parameter), so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates the 15 acceptable symbol values and shows an example output, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema definition. However, it does not explain that the parameter is optional or how to interpret the returned contract codes.

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 states the tool returns '当前可以查询的期权品种的合约日期' (contract dates for currently queryable commodity options), and provides a complete list of valid symbols plus an example return dict. This clearly identifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like option_commodity_contract_table_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative option contract tools. The description lists symbol choices and shows the return format, but does not mention under what conditions this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions or chaining with other tools.

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