stock_balance_sheet_by_yearly_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the specific source URL, but does not disclose data coverage, date ranges, or potential delays. Overall, it adds minor behavioral context beyond the 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 short and direct, but the URL line adds bulk without much functional benefit. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The param/return structure is a standard docstring format.

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 is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks information about the DataFrame's columns or the range of yearly data returned. The absence of an output schema makes this a real gap for the agent to interpret results. Still, the core purpose and parameter are clear.

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 lists only 'symbol' with no description. The description adds a key semantic detail: the symbol must include the market identifier (带市场标识), which clarifies format like SH600036. This helps the agent construct a valid argument, but it does not provide examples or case-sensitivity rules.

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 identifies the resource as the balance sheet (资产负债表) for stocks, scoped to yearly (按年度), and references East Money as the data source. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', the combination of name and description makes the function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_yearly_em by the statement type.

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. It does not mention that this is for annual reports only, nor contrast with quarterly or report-based balance sheet tools. The reference URL is a data source link, not usage guidance.

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