stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_quarterly_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 known. The description adds the quarterly granularity constraint and indicates the return type (DataFrame), which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose data source caveats, update frequency, or any limitations 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 compact, organized as a mini-docstring with sections for URL, param, return, and rtype. Every line contributes useful information, though the URL could be seen as redundant given the tool's behavior is already clear. It is appropriately front-loaded with the tool name and scope.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned (cash flow statement), the period granularity (quarterly), the input requirement (symbol with market prefix), and the return type. It lacks details like whether it covers all historical quarters or any rate limits, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is 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 must carry parameter meaning. The docstring explains ':param symbol: 股票代码; 带市场标识' (stock code with market identifier), which clarifies the expected format (e.g., SH600519) beyond the schema's bare type string. It also aligns with the default value in the schema. More examples or case sensitivity would help, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('现金流量表' = cash flow statement) and the scope ('按单季度' = by single quarter), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_yearly_em'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the noun phrase structure to imply 'get' or 'list'.

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 through the '按单季度' (by single quarter) label, which differentiates it from yearly or report-period tools. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The URL offers a source reference but no practical usage context.

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