stock_hsgt_institution_statistics_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it fetches data for a specified market and time period, but does not provide additional behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. No contradictions with 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 well-structured as a docstring with a title, URL, parameter descriptions, and return type. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the essential aspects: source, parameters, return type, and scope. Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of thorough annotation hints, it is reasonably complete. It does not detail the exact columns of the returned DataFrame or clarify the concept of 'institution statistics,' but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: market with an explicit enumeration of allowed values, and start_date/end_date with format examples (YYYYMMDD). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making it clear how to construct valid calls.

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 the tool retrieves daily individual stock institutional statistics from Eastmoney's Stock Connect holdings data center, with a specific URL and parameters. The title and description together specify the exact resource and scope (market and date range), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_hsgt_stock_statistics_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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes the parameters and return type but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the function description.

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