stock_gdfx_free_holding_teamwork_em

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 well-established. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the result is aggregated, how invalid symbols are handled, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 follows a standard docstring pattern: title, URL, param, return. Each line contributes essential information without redundancy. It is slightly terse and not front-loaded with an English action sentence, but it remains efficient and well-structured for a data-retrieval tool.

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 strong read-only annotations, the description covers the parameter choices and return type. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail the DataFrame's columns or the meaning of 'teamwork' synergy, leaving uncertainty about the result structure. It also lacks guidance on selecting this variant over closely related siblings, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'symbol' with a default of '社保' and no description. The description fully compensates by explicitly listing the allowed choice set: {"全部", "个人", "基金", "QFII", "社保", "券商", "信托"}, and clarifies the parameter is a string. This is critical for correct invocation and far exceeds the schema's minimal information.

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 identifies the data source (东方财富网, Eastmoney) and the specific dataset: 股东协同-十大流通股东 (shareholder synergy top 10 circulating shareholders). It includes the URL and return type, making the tool's resource explicit. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'list', and while it distinguishes from siblings via 'free' and 'teamwork' in the title, it does not explicitly contrast with the many similar holding-analysis 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools such as stock_gdfx_free_holding_analyse_em, stock_gdfx_holding_teamwork_em, or stock_gdfx_free_top_10_em. The description only states the data source and parameter choices, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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