index_analysis_weekly_sw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and documents the data source URL, but says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, or the shape/coverage of the returned frame.

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 identifying line and symbol choices are front-loaded and useful, but the entry is a raw docstring dump that includes a redundant URL and boilerplate ':type'/:rtype' lines that add noise without adding semantics.

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 two-parameter, read-only report-fetching tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the valid symbol set, and the date format/source. It is adequate overall, though it omits any description of the returned columns.

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 burden. It fully enumerates the four symbol choices (市场表征, 一级行业, 二级行业, 风格指数) and gives a concrete date format example (20221104) plus a pointer to the interface that supplies valid dates. Only the date constraints (valid range, plain 'YYYYMMDD' definition) remain under-specified.

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 source and report type (申万宏源研究-指数分析-周报告), a specific verb+resource that is distinguishable from siblings like index_analysis_daily_sw and index_analysis_monthly_sw via the '周' (weekly) scope. It states what the tool returns (指数分析 / pandas.DataFrame) but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus index_analysis_daily_sw or index_analysis_monthly_sw. The only usage-adjacent hint is that the date must be obtained via ak.index_analysis_week_month_sw(date=...), which is parameter sourcing rather than tool-selection guidance.

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