stock_ggcg_em

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and parameter scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, output size, or error handling, which go beyond what annotations provide.

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, including only the title, URL, parameter documentation, and return type. It is front-loaded with the resource name and avoids unnecessary filler, though the inline URL and docstring format are slightly unstructured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return structure, but it only states '高管持股' and pandas.DataFrame without column or time-range information. The single parameter is well-covered, but the output remains underspecified for an AI 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by enumerating the valid values for 'symbol' and labeling it as a choice. It clarifies the allowed options and their apparent meaning, though it does not explicitly describe how each value affects the returned DataFrame.

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 executive holdings data from Eastmoney's data center, with parameter choices indicating filtering by all, increases, or decreases. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with stock holdings data.

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 parameter choices ('全部', '股东增持', '股东减持') imply distinct usage scenarios, and the data source URL gives context. Yet it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites or exclusions, relying on the reader to infer intent.

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