stock_allotment_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose behavior like date format expectations, pagination, or network dependency. 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 presented as a docstring with a title, URL, and param blocks. It is reasonably concise but contains redundant and erroneous :type lines (all 'symbol'), which slightly undermine clarity and structure.

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?

The tool returns a pandas.DataFrame of allotment implementation plans, which is stated. However, it does not explain the semantics of the date range, whether defaults are acceptable, or what columns are expected. For a straightforward data retrieval tool, this is adequate but lacks helpful context.

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 description manually specifies each parameter: symbol as 股票代码, start_date as 开始查询的日期, end_date as 结束查询的日期, which supplements the schema that has no descriptions. However, the :type annotations are incorrectly repeated as 'symbol' for all params, and the date format is not explicitly stated beyond the default values.

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 opens with '巨潮资讯-个股-配股实施方案' (Cninfo - Individual Stock - Rights Issue Implementation Plan), clearly identifying the resource and data source. However, it lacks an explicit verb like '获取' or 'query', and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling stock-related tools beyond the topic.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_dividend_cninfo or other Cninfo-based stock tools. It only lists parameters and return type, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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