option_sse_codes_sina

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return is a tuple of two lists (call/put codes) and clarifies parameter semantics. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty lists), the format of the codes, or data source-specific behaviors, which would add further transparency.

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 compact docstring with a clear header and structured param/return lines. It is free of fluff and front-loaded with the purpose. A brief usage example would be the only improvement, but the current structure is efficient and scannable.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and output type (Tuple[List, List]). However, it omits details like the format of returned codes, what happens if no data matches, and any timezone or data update specifics. Given the annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so well: 'symbol' lists allowed choices ('看涨期权'/'看跌期权'), 'trade_date' is explained as expiration month with example '202002', and 'underlying' gives concrete tickers (510050, 510300). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties and defaults.

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 opens with '上海证券交易所-所有看涨和看跌合约的代码', clearly indicating the tool returns option contract codes for the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The resource (option codes) and scope (all call/put contracts) are explicit, though an action verb like 'get' or 'list' is missing. It does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as option_sse_list_sina, but the focus on 'codes' makes it fairly distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios are mentioned. The description only lists parameters and return type, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over similar option-related siblings.

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