stock_individual_notice_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returns a pandas.DataFrame and specifies the data source (East Money), but lacks deeper behavioral context such as pagination, date handling, or any operational constraints.

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, source URL, parameter list, and return type. It is structured and free of fluff, though it lacks an explicit opening sentence describing the tool's action in prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description minimally states it returns a DataFrame of announcements, which is adequate but sparse. It does not explain date format expectations, output columns, or how this tool fits among the many stock-related siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing Chinese meanings for all parameters: security as stock code, symbol as report type with enumerated choices, and begin/end dates. However, the date format is not specified, and the security code format (e.g., 6-digit with prefix) is not detailed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's function through the title '东方财富网-数据中心-公告大全-个股' and the return type '个股公告', indicating it fetches individual stock announcements. While the verb is implied rather than explicit, it is distinct from sibling tools like stock_notice_report by specifying 'individual' stock scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameters and return type, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like stock_notice_report.

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