query_annual_reports_toolQuery Chinese listed companies' annual, semiannual, quarterly reports and prospectuses on CNINFO by six-digit stock code; returns announcement metadata and HTTPS attachment links only.
查询巨潮资讯网中的上市公司年度、半年度、季度报告或招股书。只返回公告元数据及巨潮 HTTPS 附件链接，不下载或修改文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | 可选会计年度；查询招股书时为公告年份 | |
| stock_code | Yes | 六位股票代码，例如 000001 | |
| report_type | No | annual |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by clarifying the tool only returns metadata and HTTPS attachment links and does not download or modify files, which prevents an agent from assuming it fetches report contents.
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?
Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the output constraint second. Nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (metadata + attachment links) and what is not (no file download/modification). Combined with mostly-documented parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though pagination/response shape is unaddressed.
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 67%: stock_code and year are documented in the schema, while report_type has only an enum with no description. The description partially compensates by enumerating report kinds (年度/半年度/季度/招股书), which maps onto the enum values, but adds no code format or year semantics beyond the schema.
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 precise verb (查询) plus the exact resource (巨潮资讯网上市公司年度/半年度/季度报告或招股书). An agent knows immediately that this retrieves regulatory filings from the cninfo network, with no sibling tools to confuse it with.
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?
The description implies the use case (fetching listed-company disclosure reports) but never states when to choose this tool or any conditions/exclusions. With no siblings there is no routing alternative to name, so this is adequate but thin guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.