stock_hsgt_individual_detail_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context by naming the data source and specifying the return type as pandas.DataFrame, but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, which is acceptable given the low-risk read profile.

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 a title line, URL, parameter definitions, and return type, all front-loaded. It is structured and not overly verbose, though the title and return section repeat the same phrase 'specific stock detail'.

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 simple read-only query with three parameters, the description gives the source, all parameter meanings, defaults, and return type (DataFrame). It could benefit from clarifying date format or listing possible edge cases, but the information provided is sufficient for typical use of this data-retrieval tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's docstring explicitly defines each parameter (symbol=stock code, start_date/end_date=time range) and provides an example URL with a concrete symbol (002008). The defaults in the schema also hint at the date format, making parameter usage reasonably clear.

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 provides a clear hierarchical source label (East Money Data Center → HSGT → HSGT Holdings → Specific Stock Detail) and a URL with an example, making it clear this tool retrieves detailed HSGT holding data for an individual stock. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from other HSGT tools.

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 like stock_hsgt_hold_stock_em or stock_hsgt_individual_em. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions; it only repeats the title and parameter specs.

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