amac_manager_cancelled_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and the return type (:rtype: pandas.DataFrame), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about scope (does it return the full list?), pagination, or freshness.

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 resource name is front-loaded, which is good, but the block is a concatenation of a source title, a raw URL, an unusable code table, and Sphinx-style return tags. The URL and code list do not earn their place for an agent that cannot filter by those codes.

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 zero-parameter, read-only data fetch with annotations covering behavior and no output schema required, the description conveys what dataset is returned and its type. It is largely complete; only the true scope/volume of the returned list is left unspecified.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, but the description lists cancellation codes (主动注销:100, 依公告注销:200, 协会注销:300) that cannot be supplied anywhere because the schema takes no arguments. This orphaned mapping adds noise to a parameterless tool rather than clarifying inputs, so it falls below the neutral baseline.

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 names a specific, identifiable resource — AMAC's public disclosure of deregistered (已注销) private fund managers — which differentiates it from siblings like amac_manager_info (general manager list) and amac_manager_classify_info. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource identity is unambiguous enough for an agent to select the tool.

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 when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The cancellation-type codes (100/200/300) hint at a filtering concept but give no guidance on when to reach for this tool over the other AMAC manager tools.

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