stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_yearly_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the core safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas.DataFrame, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose other traits like data source specifics, rate limits, or edge cases. No contradiction with 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 a docstring-style block with a title, source URL, param definition, and return type. It is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, though the long URL is arguably extraneous for tool invocation. Overall, each element earns its place and the structure is clear.

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 (one param, annotations present), and the description covers the parameter meaning and return type. However, it does not explain supported market identifier formats beyond the example, nor the content structure of the cash flow statement beyond 'annual'. This is adequate for basic retrieval but leaves gaps for edge cases and expected data shape.

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 one parameter (symbol) with 0% description coverage. The description explicitly defines symbol as '股票代码; 带市场标识' (stock code with market identifier), adding crucial format context beyond the schema's default value, thus compensating well for the lack of schema-level detail.

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 states the tool provides '现金流量表-按年度' (cash flow statement by annual) for stocks, which clearly identifies the resource and period granularity. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_quarterly_em by the '按年度' (annual) qualifier, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get'.

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 gives 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_report_em. It merely states its name and parameter/return, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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