fund_announcement_personnel_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the source URL and a hint that symbol can be obtained via fund_name_em(). However, it does not disclose pagination, data range, or the structure of the returned DataFrame, which are useful behavioral traits for an agent.

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 structured with a title, URL, parameter doc, and return type. It is not overly verbose and the information is reasonably front-loaded. However, the URL and title are partially redundant with the annotation title, and the description could be more concise by removing the URL or integrating it into a sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, but it does not describe the DataFrame's columns or the scope (e.g., all historical announcements vs. recent ones). The description is adequate for basic invocation but lacks detail about the data contents, which limits completeness compared to what an agent might need.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the symbol parameter (0% coverage), but the description explains that symbol is a fund code and recommends using fund_name_em() to obtain valid codes. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, effectively compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as '人事调整' (personnel adjustments) under fund announcements and specifies the return as '人事调整-公告列表' (personnel adjustment announcement list). This makes clear that the tool retrieves fund personnel change announcements. It distinguishes from siblings like fund_announcement_dividend_em by the specific '人事调整' keyword, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as fund_announcement_dividend_em or fund_announcement_report_em, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred contexts. The only clue is the title, which implies the announcement type, but there is no explicit usage instruction.

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