stock_financial_abstract_new_ths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and return type, but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data scope, or potential side effects. No contradiction with 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 well-structured docstring with title, URL, parameter descriptions, and return type. Each section provides useful information without redundancy, though the URL could be considered optional for the agent's invocation logic.

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 there is no output schema, the description should have explained what columns or specific indicators are returned in the DataFrame, but it only mentions the return type. It also does not clarify what 'new' means relative to other THS financial abstract tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining symbol as '股票代码' and indicator as '指标', and by listing the exact allowed values for indicator: {"按报告期", "一季度", "二季度", "三季度", "四季度", "按年度"}. This significantly aids the agent in parameter selection, although it does not specify the exact format for symbol (e.g., 6-digit code).

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 '同花顺-财务指标-重要指标' and the return type '同花顺-财务指标-主要指标', clearly indicating it retrieves important financial indicators from THS for a given stock. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as stock_financial_abstract or stock_financial_abstract_ths.

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 only lists parameters and return type, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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