stock_cg_equity_mortgage_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a pandas.DataFrame and describes the date parameter, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as how the date filters data, pagination, or any special handling. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 and contains only essential information: source, parameter, and return type. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the structure mixes a Chinese title, a URL, and docstring syntax, which is not perfectly coherent. It is appropriately sized but could be better organized.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the returned data's fields or scope. It only says '股权质押' without explaining what columns or coverage the result includes. This makes it hard for an agent to determine if the tool suits a user's specific need, especially with many similar sibling tools.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the 'date' parameter. It states '开始统计时间' (start statistical time) and specifies it as a string, which gives basic meaning. However, it does not explicitly state the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) beyond the default value, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 equity pledge (股权质押) data from Cninfo's thematic statistics under corporate governance. The resource and domain are specific, and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_cg_guarantee_cninfo. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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. There is no mention of excluded cases, prerequisites, or recommended contexts. The only context is the category in the title, which is more about purpose than usage, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information.

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