stock_hot_rank_relate_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the symbol format (market representation) and return type, but discloses no unexpected behaviors, side effects, or limitations beyond what one would assume from a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise, using a structured docstring format with separate sections for source URL, parameter, and return. Every line contributes essential information without redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It states the return type is pandas.DataFrame and that it contains related stocks, but it does not detail the columns, data semantics, or any possible variations in the response. Given the missing output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 has a single parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The docstring clearly explains that 'symbol' should be a security code with market representation (e.g., 'SZ000665'), which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter name and default value. It could provide a more detailed format specification, but it is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 'related stocks' from the East Money individual stock popularity list, which distinguishes it from siblings like stock_hot_rank_em. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', making it a noun phrase rather than a full functional statement.

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 implies usage through its title and parameter definition (given a symbol, get related stocks), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The URL example provides minimal context but no comparative guidance.

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