stock_gpzy_individual_pledge_ratio_detail_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 safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of data source, return characteristics, symbol format, or any operational nuances. The description contributes zero additional transparency.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than concise effective communication. A single sentence that merely restates the tool name does not earn its place; it provides no informative content. The structure is minimal but functionally empty.

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 data-fetching tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, what 'individual pledge ratio' means, or how it differs from closely related tools. The combination of a zero-information description and minimal schema leaves the agent unable to use this tool correctly or predict its output.

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 only parameter 'symbol' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description provides no meaning, format, or example. The agent cannot infer what a valid symbol looks like (e.g., '600000' vs 'sh600000') or how it relates to the pledge ratio domain. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 is purely tautological: "AKShare API: stock_gpzy_individual_pledge_ratio_detail_em" simply restates the tool name with a prefix. It does not state what the tool does, what resource it operates on, or what 'individual pledge ratio detail' means. It fails to convey any specific verb, action, or domain context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as stock_gpzy_pledge_ratio_detail_em or stock_gpzy_industry_data_em. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria. The description is just a label with no contextual direction.

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