stock_balance_sheet_by_report_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a source URL and states the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose any data range, pagination, or limitation details. It adds some value beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with the title, then provides URL, param doc, and return type. Each line serves a purpose, though the return line partially repeats the title.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description gives the essential info (source, param, return type). However, it lacks details about data coverage (e.g., A-shares only, range of report periods) that would help an agent fully understand the output. The good annotations mitigate some gaps.

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 explicitly documents the 'symbol' parameter as '股票代码; 带市场标识' (stock code with market identifier), and the URL example 'sh600519' clarifies the expected format. This goes beyond the schema's minimal type/default definition.

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 resource as Eastmoney's balance sheet by report period, and the 'by_report_em' naming distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_balance_sheet_by_yearly_em. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', functioning more as a title than a directive.

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 such as stock_balance_sheet_by_yearly_em or stock_balance_sheet_by_report_delisted_em. It only states what it returns, but no selection criteria.

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