index_analysis_monthly_sw

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 (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about rate limits, freshness, or coverage of the report.

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 docstring is front-loaded with the report name and URL, then parameters and return type, with no filler. Sphinx-style type annotations are slightly redundant but do not bloat the text.

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 two-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the resource, both parameters (including enum values), and the return type. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge behavior (e.g., valid date formats) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it lists the four allowed symbol values (市场表征/一级行业/二级行业/风格指数) that appear nowhere in the schema, and explains that date is a query date obtainable via the sibling tool. That materially compensates for the empty schema.

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 resource (申万宏源指数分析/月报告) and the '月报告' scope distinguishes it from the daily and weekly siblings (index_analysis_daily_sw, index_analysis_weekly_sw). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent among those siblings, but the resource and period are unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not statement relative to the sibling analysis tools. However, the note that the date must be obtained by first calling ak.index_analysis_week_month_sw() gives an implied workflow dependency, which is more than nothing but less than real selection guidance.

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