stock_ipo_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the direct source URL, which is useful but not extensive. 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 concise and follows a docstring structure with param, type, return, and rtype lines. The included URL is slightly verbose but adds source context. No unnecessary filler; it earns its place.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides the essential return type and parameter meaning. However, it does not describe what 'new stock issuance details' actually contain, nor does it clarify the scope (e.g., only A-shares) or any data limitations. This would be sufficient for a basic understanding but not for nuanced tool selection.

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 only parameter 'stock' is clearly explained as a stock code (股票代码), and the URL provides an example (600004). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by defining the parameter's meaning and expected format.

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 states the tool returns new stock issuance details (新股发行详情) for a given stock code. This is a specific action and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling IPO tools. The source URL (Sina Finance) helps identify the data origin.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling IPO tools (e.g., stock_ipo_ths, stock_ipo_review_em). The description only implies usage via the stock parameter, without context on selection criteria or alternatives.

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