stock_ipo_review_em

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 the source URL and return type but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as data scope, update frequency, or potential limitations. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: three lines covering the source, URL, and return type. No unnecessary words, each element 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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description provides the data source and return type, which is fairly complete. However, it lacks detail about the exact data fields or whether the data is historical/current, but this is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously). The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics.

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 as returning '新股上会信息' (IPO review meeting information) from East Money's data center, with the URL and return type making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_ipo_declare_em by specifying '上会' (review meeting), but the verb is implied via ':return:' rather than an explicit 'Get' or 'List'.

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 other IPO-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or specific use cases beyond the data source itself.

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