option_hist_yearly_czce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: the note '注意品种的上市时间' warns that data may not exist before a product's listing date, and it specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame with daily frequency. However, it does not describe error handling, rate limits, or what happens for invalid inputs beyond that caveat.

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 raw docstring with a category path, a URL, parameter definitions, and return info. It is not overly long but includes some redundancy (the category path duplicates the annotation title) and the URL adds little value. The structure is conventional and readable, but could be tightened and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence.

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 two-parameter historical data download tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the data source (CZCE), the parameters (symbol and year), the frequency (daily), and the return type (DataFrame). It lacks a list of DataFrame columns and does not clarify the symbol input format, but these are not critical gaps for a tool of this complexity, especially given the read-only annotations.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly documents the symbol parameter with a complete mapping of Chinese names to codes (白糖→SR, etc.) and explains year with the listing-time caveat. However, there is a potential ambiguity: the default value for symbol is 'SR' (a code), while the mapping is keyed by Chinese names, so it is unclear whether the parameter expects the Chinese name or the code. This prevents a perfect score.

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 resource (CZCE options historical data) and the return statement '指定年份的日频期权数据' clarifies it returns daily options data for a specified year. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'download' in a standalone sentence, relying on the breadcrumb title '期权历史行情下载' and the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling option_hist_czce only through the 'yearly' in the name, not through explicit differentiation.

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 the many sibling option_hist_* tools (e.g., option_hist_czce, option_hist_dce). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The year parameter and return type imply yearly historical data, but this is not explicitly stated as a usage condition.

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