stock_circulate_stock_holder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: for certain stocks at certain times, only the top 5 circulating shareholders are returned (example 000002). It also includes a source URL, which helps set expectations about data origin. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't disclose other traits like data freshness or pagination.

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 relatively short but not ideally structured. It begins with a label-like phrase rather than a clear functional sentence, and includes a P.S., URL, and docstring with some redundancy (the title '新浪财经-股东股本-流通股东' appears both at the start and in the return). It is not verbose, but the information could be better organized with the purpose stated first.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, but it does not describe the columns, content, or behavior beyond the top-5 caveat. The P.S. about the top-5 limitation is useful but underexplained. Overall, it is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps about the returned data's structure and edge cases.

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 input schema only defines `symbol` as a string with default '600000' and no description. The description compensates by stating `:param symbol: 股票代码` (stock code) and providing an example URL with `stockid=600000`, which clarifies the parameter's meaning. This is minimal but essential, and it partially offsets the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the tool as '新浪财经-股东股本-流通股东' (Sina Finance Shareholders Equity - Circulating Shareholders) and includes a source URL and return type, making it clear that it retrieves circulating shareholder data for a stock symbol. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', and does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as stock_main_stock_holder or stock_fund_stock_holder.

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. The only additional note is a limitation ('P.S. 特定股票特定时间只有前 5 个'), but it does not mention any alternative tools or conditions for choosing this one. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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