reits_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and specifies the data source (East Money), but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data frequency, date range limitations, or network requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with a title, a source URL, and a docstring-style parameter/return section. It is structured and avoids unnecessary filler, though the URL and title repeat each other slightly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what it returns (a DataFrame of historical quotes). However, it lacks details about the specific columns, data period, and any limitations, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the result correctly.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that the 'symbol' parameter is a REITs code and provides an example URL with 'sh508097'. However, it does not clarify whether the code should include an exchange prefix, and the default is a bare number, leaving some ambiguity about the expected format.

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 historical quotes for Shanghai and Shenzhen REITs from East Money, including an example URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reits_realtime_em and reits_hist_min_em by focusing on '历史行情' (historical quotes), though it does not state an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

Usage context is implied: the name and description indicate this is for REIT historical data, and the presence of siblings for minute and realtime data suggests when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria, so it stops at implied usage.

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