option_sse_list_sina

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and the return type (list of contract expiry times), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the list entries. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides rich behavioral context.

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 concise, with a clear title, URL, parameter list, and return type. However, the title in the description duplicates the annotation title, and the 'exchange: null' line adds no value. These minor redundancies prevent a perfect score, but the structure is efficient overall.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It states the purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks clarity on the 'exchange' parameter (which is confusingly described as 'null') and does not specify the exact format of the returned expiry month list. Given the tool's low complexity, it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 clarify parameters. It does provide meaningful guidance for the 'symbol' parameter by stating it accepts '50ETF' or '300ETF'. However, the 'exchange' parameter is described as 'null', which is unhelpful and does not clarify its purpose or valid values. The return type is also mentioned, adding some value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it lists contract expiry months for SSE 50ETF/300ETF options from Sina Finance. The Chinese title '新浪财经-期权-上交所-50ETF-合约到期月份列表' is specific and unambiguous, and the return type is explicitly defined as a list of expiry times. It distinguishes from sibling option tools (e.g., daily, minute, spot price tools) by focusing on '到期月份' (expiry months).

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a list of contract expiry months is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool recommendations. For example, there is no guidance distinguishing it from option_sse_expire_day_sina, which lists expiry days. The usage context is clear but not explicit.

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