stock_zh_index_hist_csindex

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the return is closing price only (只有收盘价), that data comes from the CSIndex website, and that the return type is a pandas.DataFrame with date and close columns.

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 line is front-loaded and useful, but the body is a docstring dump (:param/:type/:return/:rtype) plus a trailing URL, which is bulkier than needed and partly redundant with the schema. It is functional rather than tight.

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 read-only historical-data query with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return shape, data source, and a usage caveat. The main omission is the date-format convention, which an agent calling with the wrong format could get wrong.

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, and it does: symbol (指数代码, e.g. H30374), start_date and end_date are all documented with types. It stops short of specifying the expected date format (e.g. YYYYMMDD), which the defaults imply but the text never states.

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 verb+resource: fetching historical quote data for a specific CSI/CSCI index (中证指数-具体指数-历史行情数据). It is distinguishable from siblings like index_zh_a_hist or index_hist_cni by naming the CSIndex source, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Explicitly warns '正常情况下不应使用该接口，除非指数只有中证网站有' (normally do not use this interface unless the index is only available on the CSIndex website), a genuine when-not condition. It does not, however, name the alternative tool to use instead, so routing remains partially inferred.

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