stock_hsgt_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and parameter details, but nothing about pagination, rate limits, or data scope beyond that. With strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 structured as a docstring with clear sections (:param:, :type:, :return:, :rtype:). It includes a source URL for context and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool. No redundant phrasing.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: data source, parameter choices, return type, and URL. It assumes domain knowledge about Stock Connect but is adequate for a simple historical data fetcher. Minor gaps include lack of date range or data granularity, but that's acceptable for this level of complexity.

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 'symbol' with no description and no enum. The description fully compensates by listing all accepted choices (北向资金, 沪股通, etc.) and the type (str). This is essential for correct invocation and adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it provides 沪深港通历史数据 (Stock Connect historical data) from East Money, with the title and parameter choices making the resource explicit. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and while the 'hist' in the name distinguishes it from other HSGT tools, the description itself doesn't directly contrast with siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other HSGT-related tools like stock_hsgt_fund_flow_summary_em or stock_hsgt_fund_min_em. It only lists the symbol choices, implying usage for historical data but lacking explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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