stock_individual_basic_info_hk_xq

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that a valid login token (xq_a_token) may be required and that an APIError is raised for invalid login states, which is useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 docstring is reasonably concise and follows a standard structure with parameter/return/exception sections. It includes a useful example URL. Minor redundancy exists in the type declarations, but overall every part serves a purpose.

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, but the description lacks details on the market scope (HK stocks) and the contents of the returned DataFrame. It also doesn't explain how to obtain the token or any limitations. Given there is no output schema, more explicit return field documentation would improve completeness.

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 zero description coverage, but the docstring explains each parameter: symbol is a securities code, token is the Xueqiu xq_a_token, and timeout sets the timeout period. The return type is specified as a pandas DataFrame, which adds meaning beyond the raw 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 indicates this tool retrieves a company profile ('公司简介') for an individual stock, with a sample URL (00700). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the A-share or US versions of the same tool; the differentiation relies on the tool name containing 'hk_xq'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., stock_individual_basic_info_xq for A-shares, stock_individual_basic_info_us_xq for US, or stock_hk_company_profile_em). The only hint is the tool name, which is not elaborated in the description.

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