sw_index_third_cons

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the data comes from legulegu.com and returns a pandas DataFrame, but it does not disclose potential errors, pagination, data freshness, or whether the output includes historical or current constituents. This is adequate but not 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 relatively compact: a title line, a URL, and parameter documentation. It front-loads the primary name and provides essential details without verbose explanation. The structure is a mix of natural language and code-comment style, which is slightly less readable but still economical and to the point.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the source, the input meaning, and the return type (DataFrame). However, it does not describe the structure of the returned DataFrame (e.g., columns like stock code, name, weight) or any edge cases (e.g., invalid industry code, timing of data refresh). This is a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by documenting ':param symbol: 三级行业的行业代码' and ':type symbol: str', clarifying that the symbol is the Level 3 industry code. The default value '801120.SI' and the URL also provide an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not enumerate possible code formats or whether the parameter is required.

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 indicates this tool provides Shenwan Level 3 industry constituents, with the name and URL pointing to an index-composition page. It specifies the resource (industry constituents) and scope (Level 3 industry), though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as index_component_sw.

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?

Usage is implied: when you need constituents of a Shenwan Level 3 industry, provide the industry code. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention alternative tools for other Shenwan levels or different data sources.

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