fund_report_stock_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date format constraint and return type (DataFrame), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose any limitations, pagination behavior, or data scope beyond the generic label '基金重仓股'.

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 a compact docstring with title, source URL, parameter definition, and return type. It is front-loaded and each section contributes value, but the title line duplicates the annotation title, resulting in minor redundancy overall.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the source, category, date format, and return type. However, it does not describe the contents or columns of the returned DataFrame, nor any operational limitations. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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 has one parameter without a description (0% coverage), but the description provides the meaning and allowed values: date must be a quarter-end date in the form XXXX0331, XXXX0630, XXXX0930, or XXXX1231. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail, though it could be more explicit about the year/month/day interpretation.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing fund heavy holdings (基金重仓股) from CNINFO thematic statistics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_report_asset_allocation_cninfo. It includes a resource path and return type, making the main function evident. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the docstring convention.

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 alternative fund-report tools. It only states the date parameter format but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios suited for this tool. The agent is left without criteria for tool selection among many similar fund-related tools.

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