stock_hold_management_detail_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating query. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not clarify data scope, pagination, rate limits, or any filtering behavior beyond the symbol parameter. This is adequate but not rich, given the safety profile is already disclosed.

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 concise, containing only the title, source URL, parameter documentation, and return type in a standard docstring format. It is not bloated, but the URL and title are somewhat redundant with the tool name. The information is front-loaded enough for an agent to quickly parse the purpose and parameter.

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 that there is no output schema, the description only states the return type as pandas.DataFrame and the content as 高管持股变动明细, but it does not describe columns, date ranges, or possible limitations. The single optional parameter is well-documented, making the tool minimally viable, but the lack of usage guidance and return value details leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it for a specific task.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the allowed values for 'symbol' as the choice of {'增持', '减持'} (increase/decrease), which is not present in the input schema. It also confirms the parameter type. This meaningfully adds to the bare schema definition, though it does not explain the semantics of the choices further.

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 tool as retrieving executive shareholding change details (高管持股变动明细) from CNInfo's Data Center thematic statistics section, including the source URL. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the docstring-style format with ':return:' implies a data retrieval function. The cninfo suffix in the tool name distinguishes it from the similar EM-based sibling stock_hold_management_detail_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to the many sibling tools (e.g., stock_hold_management_detail_em, stock_hold_management_person_em). The only context is the source name and URL, which implicitly suggests data origin but not usage scenarios.

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