stock_dzjy_hyyybtj

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 covered. The description adds the URL and the parameter semantics (time-range choices), but no additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or limitations. This is acceptable but not extensive.

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 well-structured: title, URL, parameter specification, return type. Every line contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. It lacks column details or data examples for the returned DataFrame, and there is no output schema, but the URL and parameter choices give adequate context for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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 lists symbol as a string with a default, but the description's docstring enumerates the exact permitted values ('当前交易日', '近3日', '近5日', '近10日', '近30日') and specifies the return type. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter usage unambiguous.

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 data source (Eastmoney), the domain (block trades), and the specific data set (active business department statistics). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic data tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling block trade statistics tools like stock_dzjy_hygtj or stock_dzjy_yybph. The verb is implied but the resource is specific.

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 the parameter choices (time ranges) but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on scenarios where this specific statistic is appropriate versus other block trade data tools.

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