bond_available_index_cbond

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a list of selectable options (可选项列表), a modest behavioral note, but nothing about what the options represent or how they are scoped. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is short, but the content is docstring fragments (a bare URL, ':return:', ':rtype:') rather than a front-loaded sentence about what the tool does. Concise but not well-structured for an agent.

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 enumerator with no output schema, the description does say the result is a list of options, which is minimally sufficient. But the ambiguous '非指定期限部分' scope and lack of any return-shape detail leave it only adequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per the rubric this is a baseline 4.

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 data source (中国债券信息网-中债指数) and states it returns a list of available options (可选项列表), which aligns with the name 'available_index'. However, the phrasing '非指定期限部分' is obscure and the purpose is conveyed as a raw source pointer with a URL rather than a clean verb+resource statement, leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. Siblings like bond_composite_index_cbond, bond_new_composite_index_cbond, and bond_treasury_index_cbond exist but are not referenced, so the agent has no routing guidance beyond the tool name.

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