option_hist_yearly_czce

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the practical caveat that data only exists from the variety's listing date, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about the supported year range or data source reliability, so it is only moderately additive.

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 front-loaded with the tool's identity and source URL, and every block is at least relevant, but the title line duplicates the annotation title and the long inline enumeration, while necessary, makes the description dense and hard to scan.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the parameter coverage is adequate and the return type is stated. The gap is sibling disambiguation: nothing explains why an agent would pick the yearly CSV download over option_hist_czce, and the accepted year range 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% – neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description compensates substantially by supplying the full symbol-to-code mapping (SR, CF, TA, ...) that the schema omits entirely, and by clarifying that the year must be chosen within the variety's listing window.

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 uses a specific verb (下载/download) plus resource (郑州商品交易所期权历史行情) and pins the exact source page, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling option_hist_czce (daily variant), so the 'yearly' scope that the name implies is never explained.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as option_hist_czce or option_hist_dce/gfex/shfe. The only usage hint is the inline note that the year must respect the variety's listing date, which is a constraint, not a selection rule.

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