option_risk_analysis_em

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the title and return type, omitting details such as data scope, freshness, or any limitations.

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 very short but includes redundant elements—the title is repeated, and the return type is stated in a stilted ':return:' format. While it is concise, it could be better structured to convey actual value.

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 data the tool returns. It only says '期权风险分析' without enumerating the metrics, underlying contracts, or data granularity, making it inadequate for an agent to anticipate the output content.

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 baseline score of 4 applies. The empty schema is fully described trivially, and there is no parameter information needed.

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 an Eastmoney data source for options risk analysis and indicates it returns a pandas DataFrame. However, it merely restates the title and does not specify what 'risk analysis' includes, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling option tools like option_value_analysis_em or option_risk_indicator_sse.

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 alternative option data tools. The description only gives a URL and a generic return type, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over its many siblings.

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