fund_individual_detail_hold_xq

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

Annotations clearly declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it names the source (Xueqiu/Danjuan), specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame, and indicates the timeout parameter semantics. It does not disclose potential errors, data coverage, or pagination, but the read-only nature with annotations makes a 3 appropriate.

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 reasonably compact but not optimally structured. It lacks a clear imperative sentence at the top; the first line is the title repeated. The URL adds contextual value but could be considered noise. The docstring-style parameter list and return line are efficient, but the overall structure is more like a technical docstring than a user-facing description. It earns a solid 3.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the source, all three parameters with types and example values, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not enumerate the DataFrame columns, but 'holdings' is clear enough for a fund context. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the explicit return type, making this reasonably complete.

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 schema provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the parameters. It does so thoroughly: symbol is defined as 基金代码 (fund code), date as 财报日期 (report date), and timeout as a choice of None or a positive float. It also includes an example URL with concrete values (code=002804, id=103), which adds practical context beyond the schema. This fully compensates 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 title '雪球基金-持仓' (Xueqiu Fund - Holdings) and parameter names (symbol, date) make clear this tool retrieves fund holdings for a given fund code and reporting date. However, the description does not explicitly state 'Get holdings for a fund' in a complete sentence, relying primarily on the title and return type. It is distinct enough from siblings due to 'hold' in the name and the Chinese title, but not fully differentiated in the description.

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. There are many sibling fund tools (e.g., fund_portfolio_hold_em, fund_hold_structure_em) with similar purposes, but the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases. It only lists parameters and return type, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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