stock_cg_guarantee_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect posture. The description adds the pandas.DataFrame return type and the source URL, giving some context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose potential latency, data freshness, pagination, or how the date range affects results. It does not contradict 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 compact docstring of about 10 short lines, front-loading the data source and URL. It avoids fluff, presents parameters in a clear list, and gives return type. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be slightly more narrative.

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 has three optional parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description provides the source URL, param semantics, and return type, which is sufficient for a basic invocation. However, the return value is only labeled as '对外担保' without describing columns, rows, or behavior across market segments, and date format is not explicit. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates for parameter meaning. It explains 'symbol' with a specific choice list (全部, 深市主板, etc.) and defines start_date and end_date as '开始统计时间' and '结束统计时间'. However, it does not specify the date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) beyond the defaults, which is a minor gap.

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 indicates the tool retrieves external guarantee (对外担保) data from CNInfo's data center, with the first line naming the specific thematic statistics category. The tool name and param descriptions reinforce this, but there is no explicit verb phrase like 'Fetch' or 'Get' and no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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. It does not mention related tools like stock_cg_equity_mortgage_cninfo or stock_cg_lawsuit_cninfo, nor does it define the appropriate use case beyond the raw parameter descriptions. The URL is given, but no selection criteria or exclusions are stated.

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