stock_board_concept_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds only some context like the return type (DataFrame) and adjustment choices. It does not disclose potential quirks like date format requirements or behavior on invalid inputs, but the existing annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise docstring with a clear title, URL, and parameter list. However, it contains a redundant and incorrect line for 'period' that duplicates 'symbol', and the parameter lines are not perfectly ordered, reducing structural elegance.

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 simple historical data tool with annotations and 5 parameters, the description covers the resource, source, parameters, and return type. It does not list the DataFrame columns or explicitly state the date format, but defaults and context make it reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for all 5 parameters. It provides meanings for symbol, period, start_date, end_date, and adjust choices, though there is a typo where 'period' is incorrectly described as '板块名称' (same as symbol), which slightly undermines clarity.

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 states the tool fetches historical quotes for Shanghai/Shenzhen concept boards from Eastmoney, as shown in the title and first line. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spot or minute-level board tools because it specifically handles historical daily/weekly/monthly data.

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 implies usage for historical data via the title and parameter choices, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like spot or intraday tools. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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