stock_zh_index_daily_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL. It does not disclose any quirks like data adjustment policies, date format expectations, or whether the defaults in the schema have special meaning. With annotations covering the safety aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured docstring with sections for source, URL, parameters, and return type. It front-loads the data source and is free of redundant fluff, though the URL line is arguably unnecessary for an agent. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema), and the description states the return type. However, it lacks crucial details for an agent: exact date format, the meaning of the returned DataFrame's columns, and how this tool differs from similar index tools. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema provides defaults, but the description alone would not fully guide correct invocation without inference.

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%, but the description partially compensates for the 'symbol' parameter by explaining the market prefixes (sz, sh, csi) and providing an example (csi931151). However, start_date and end_date are only labeled '开始时间' and '结束时间' without specifying the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD). The defaults in the schema hint at the format, but the description does not clarify it explicitly.

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 states the resource ('东方财富网-股票指数数据', i.e., Eastmoney stock index data) and includes a URL, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'query'. The name and parameters imply historical daily data, but the description itself does not specify granularity (daily vs. spot vs. minute), making it ambiguous among sibling index tools.

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 alternatives. The sibling list contains many similar index tools (stock_zh_index_daily, stock_zh_index_daily_tx, index_zh_a_hist, etc.), but the description does not differentiate them or state use cases. The docstring only covers parameter definitions, not selection criteria.

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