stock_board_concept_index_ths

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, which provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, date format expectations, or other behavioral nuances that would be useful.

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 with a clear docstring format (params and return type). It includes a useful URL and does not contain excessive filler. The repetition of '指数数据' is minor, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 data-fetching tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and return type, but it lacks context about the meaning of the returned index data, expected date formats, and how the symbol parameter interacts with the URL. The defaults provide some hints, but the description still feels incomplete for an agent without domain knowledge.

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 provides per-parameter docs, but they are minimal: start_date is '开始时间' (start time), end_date is '结束时间' (end time), and symbol is '指数数据' (index data), which is tautological and does not clarify that symbol is the concept board name (as implied by the default '阿里巴巴概念'). It also fails to specify the date format, though the schema defaults suggest YYYYMMDD. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 identifies the resource: 同花顺-板块-概念板块-指数数据 (THS concept board index data), and includes a specific URL. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying '指数数据' (index data), distinguishing it from other concept board tools like stock_board_concept_info_ths or stock_board_concept_hist_em. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it reads more like a title than an action.

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 mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this is preferred. The description only gives the source and parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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