stock_gdfx_holding_statistics_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the data source URL, but does not disclose whether the tool returns data for all stocks or a specific stock, the date format, or potential pagination. This omission is significant given the many similar sibling tools.

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 follows a standard docstring format with :param and :return. It includes the Chinese title and URL, which provide helpful context, without any fluff. While it is not overly verbose, it could be more front-loaded with a clear action statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description's ':return: 十大股东' and ':rtype: pandas.DataFrame' are minimal and do not explain the DataFrame's columns or scope. The description does not mention that this tool appears to provide statistics across all stocks for a given report period, nor does it clarify how it differs from the many sibling holding-analysis tools. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'date' with a type and default, so the description's ':param date: 报告期' (report period) adds essential meaning. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or the allowed range, though the default '20210930' implies the format. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 resource as the Eastmoney data center shareholder analysis page for top 10 shareholders holding statistics, including a URL and return type. It specifies '十大股东' (top 10 shareholders) and '股东持股统计' (shareholder holding statistics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like holding change or holding detail. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the return docstring implies retrieval.

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 such as stock_gdfx_holding_change_em or stock_gdfx_holding_detail_em. It only documents the date parameter and return type, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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