sw_index_second_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the source URL and return type, but no behavioral caveats, data scope, or performance characteristics. Minimal extra value over annotations.

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—a name, a URL, and return type—with no verbose filler. It is appropriately sized but borders on under-specification, lacking a structured explanation of what the classification entails.

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 no-parameter, read-only info tool, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain what fields or codes are included in the returned classification, nor how it differs from other Shenwan levels. Annotations cover safety, but the description misses important context about the output.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly notes the return type (pandas DataFrame). No additional parameter explanation is 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 providing Shenwan Level 2 industry classification, with a source URL and return type. This distinguishes it from siblings like sw_index_first_info and sw_index_third_info. However, it lacks an explicit verb, reading more as a label than a full description.

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. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with related Shenwan classification tools.

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