stock_dividend_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a URL, but no behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, or coverage limitations. Since the schema lacks an output description, the return type is mildly helpful, but overall the description adds little beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 short and thus concise, but its structure is fragmented: a Chinese title, a URL, then a docstring block. It lacks a front-loaded clear sentence stating the tool's primary function. The information is present but not organized in a way that makes it immediately scannable for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only), the description covers the basic inputs and return type. However, it does not contextualize the data source, the meaning of the default value (600009), how this relates to other dividend tools, or what columns/fields the returned DataFrame contains. Without an output schema, this omission is significant for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its needs.

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 description's param docstring says 'symbol: 股票代码' (stock code), which duplicates the schema's parameter name and default value. It does not explain the format, required length, exchange, or any example. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it only restates the obvious. No additional meaning is provided.

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 resource (historical dividends for an individual stock from cninfo) but lacks a clear action verb. The title '巨潮资讯-个股-历史分红' is essentially repeated, and while the intent is evident, it does not explicitly say 'retrieve' or 'get'. It distinguishes the data source but does not differentiate from sibling tools dealing with dividends.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competing tools. The URL is given but not explained as a reference. The intended use case (fetching historical dividends) is only implicit from the title.

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