bond_china_close_return

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 genuine behavioural context beyond that: the source site URL, the period enum values, and the hard constraint that start_date and end_date must not span more than one month.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the raw source URL is useful, but the Sphinx-style block is disordered – types are attached to the wrong parameters – which hurts scannability. Content is reasonably sized with no obvious filler.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations present, the description covers the purpose, all four parameters and the key date-range constraint. It still omits the valid symbol values, the shape/columns of the returned DataFrame, and any pagination or rate-limit behaviour, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does name all four parameters (symbol as the indicator, period as the term interval with choices {'0.1','0.5','1'}, start/end date with the 1-month limit). However, the :param/:type pairs are mismatched (the period enum is listed under symbol and vice versa), and the allowed value domain for symbol is never given beyond the 国债 default, leaving gaps.

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 a specific resource – closing yield curve historical data (收盘收益率曲线历史数据) – which clarifies the otherwise cryptic name 'bond_china_close_return'. It does not differentiate from near-neighbours such as bond_china_close_return_map or bond_china_yield, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sibling tools (bond_china_close_return_map, bond_china_yield). The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name and the resource description.

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