stock_hk_security_profile_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. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and provides a source URL, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential pitfalls such as required code format (e.g., leading zeros) or error behavior. With annotations covering the core safety profile, this level of transparency is minimally acceptable.

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 relatively concise: a short title, a source URL, and docstring for parameter and return. It avoids excessive verbosity. The URL is a bit long but adds reference value. Overall, it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 should specify the returned data structure. It only says '证券资料' (securities profile) and 'pandas.DataFrame', leaving the fields ambiguous. It also lacks guidance on valid symbol formats or edge cases. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for a new 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 single parameter 'symbol' is described as '股票代码' (stock code), and the URL example 'code=03900' provides a concrete format illustration. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description compensates effectively by explaining the parameter and offering a realistic example.

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 states the tool provides '东方财富-港股-证券资料' (East Money HK Stock Securities Profile), indicating it fetches profile data for a Hong Kong stock. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the resource and market are clearly identified. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though not explicitly differentiated from the similar stock_hk_company_profile_em.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools. For an agent selecting among many HK stock tools, this is insufficient.

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