stock_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals little beyond the output shape. It does not state whether the tool performs live data lookups, whether it is read-only, what happens for invalid or non-A-share symbols, or any potential failure modes. The 'A 股' scope is a useful constraint but insufficient for a financial data tool.

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 description is compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a lean Args block. Every line earns its place, the most important information is front-loaded, and the parameter documentation follows a standard readable format with no filler.

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 tool, the description covers the essentials — purpose and parameter semantics — adequately. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, it should offset those gaps by disclosing more behavioral context, such as data sources, read-only guarantees, or failure behavior, and by hinting at when it should be selected over analyze_stock. Those clear gaps keep it at minimum viable rather than better.

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 compensate, and it does: the Args section explains symbol's accepted formats (code or name, with concrete examples '600519 / 贵州茅台') and include_risk's meaning and default value (True). This adds real value beyond the bare schema; the only minor gap is the lack of stricter format constraints for symbol beyond the example.

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 ('生成' / 'generate') and a specific resource ('单只 A 股标的的公司概览与风险点简报' — company overview and risk briefing for a single A-share stock). The '单只' (single) scope differentiates it from screen_stocks and compare_stocks, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-sibling analyze_stock, leaving ambiguity about when each single-stock tool is appropriate.

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 its alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states exclusion conditions (e.g., 'for broader screening, use screen_stocks'), and the closest sibling analyze_stock is not mentioned at all. The single-stock scope is an implication of the purpose, not explicit usage guidance.

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