option_daily_stats_szse

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the source URL and a generic 'returns daily statistics' statement, but does not disclose behavioral details such as data granularity, date range constraints, or response structure beyond the return type. It falls short of the context that annotations do not cover.

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 well-structured: title, source URL, and docstring blocks. It avoids unnecessary verbiage, though the title is repeated verbatim as the first line, adding a minor redundancy. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 explain what the daily overview DataFrame contains (columns, metrics, etc.). It only says '每日统计' (daily statistics), leaving the data content unspecified. It also fails to mention how this tool relates to its SSE sibling, making it incomplete for an agent needing to decide on data coverage.

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 description labels the date parameter as '交易日' (trading day), giving it semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'date' field. However, it does not specify the required format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or provide examples, despite the schema default '20240626' hinting at it. With 0% schema coverage, this partial explanation merits a 3.

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 largely a title ('深圳证券交易所-市场数据-期权数据-日度概况') plus a source URL and docstring. It clearly indicates the resource (SZSE options) and scope (daily stats), but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets.' It also does not distinguish this tool from its direct sibling option_daily_stats_sse except through the tool name itself.

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 (e.g., option_daily_stats_sse for SSE), nor are any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions mentioned. The description is purely declarative and gives no decision-making support.

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