index_stock_cons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful non-schema facts: the upstream data endpoint and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which matters since no output schema exists. It still says nothing about pagination, index coverage, or failure behavior for invalid index codes.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the endpoint, then sphinx-style param/return lines. Slight redundancy between the opening line and the :return: line, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool the essentials are present, but with no output schema and three indistinguishable siblings, the description leaves the agent unable to confirm this is the right tool or what the returned DataFrame columns mean.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain that symbol is the index code and where to obtain it (ak.index_stock_info()). It omits the accepted format and the fact that the schema defaults to '399639', which the agent would need when calling without arguments.

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?

States a specific resource – the latest constituent-stock list for a given index – which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to separate itself from near-identical siblings such as index_stock_cons_sina, index_stock_cons_csindex, and index_stock_cons_weight_csindex, so an agent cannot tell from the text which variant to pick.

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-to-use guidance, and no mention of the three sibling constituent tools that differ only by data source (Sina/CSIndex/weighted). The only procedural hint is that the symbol can be obtained from ak.index_stock_info(), which is about a prerequisite value, not about tool selection.

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