stock_hot_keyword_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral nuance (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, or result variability), but also does not contradict the annotations.

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 a compact docstring with title, URL, parameter, and return documentation. It is front-loaded and efficient. The URL example is slightly misleading, but overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description provides the return type and parameter meaning. However, it does not explain what hot keywords represent, how they are derived, or the structure of the returned DataFrame beyond 'pandas.DataFrame'. The example URL adds ambiguity about the expected symbol format.

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 a default value with no description. The description explains the 'symbol' parameter as '带市场表示的证券代码' (securities code with market representation) and type str, which is essential for using the tool correctly. The URL example uses 'code=000665' which is slightly inconsistent with the default 'SZ000665', but the parameter description clarifies the format.

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 identifies the tool as returning hot keywords from East Money's individual stock popularity ranking, using the title and docstring. It includes a URL and parameter/return specs. However, it lacks a clear verb phrase and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other stock_hot_rank_* functions, though the 'keyword' focus is evident.

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 alternatives, no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints. The description only documents parameters and returns without any usage context.

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