stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_report_em

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add complementary context. It adds the return type (pandas DataFrame) and the parameter format (stock code with market identifier). It does not elaborate on data scope, potential errors, or update frequency, but for a read-only fetch tool this is acceptable.

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 URL, parameter explanation, and return type. It follows a clear structure with no wasted words, though the URL is somewhat long but serves as a reference. Each line contributes to understanding the tool.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description provides the essential information: purpose, parameter, and return type. It does not enumerate DataFrame columns or data range, but the name and context from the financial statement type make this acceptable. No output schema exists, so the return type mention is sufficient.

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 has no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must clarify it. It states '股票代码; 带市场标识' (stock code with market identifier) and the URL example shows 'sh600519'. This gives basic meaning, but does not specify exact format rules (case, market prefixes) or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 tool as retrieving the cash flow statement by reporting period for a stock from East Money. It includes a source URL and specifies the return type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like quarterly or yearly cash flow statements, though the name and title already imply the 'by report' scope.

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_cash_flow_sheet_by_quarterly_em or stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_yearly_em. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar financial statement tools.

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