stock_irm_ans_cninfo

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 clear. The description adds the return type (str) and how the symbol is sourced. It doesn't disclose potential issues like rate limits or invalid question IDs, but for a simple read-only retrieval this is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the Chinese title. It uses a docstring format with a URL example, which is somewhat noisy but not overly long. Every line adds some value.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose, how to get the parameter, and the return type. However, it lacks details on error handling, data format specifics, or any caveats (e.g., real-time vs historical), leaving gaps that could cause mis-invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that symbol is a questioner number (though likely actually a question ID) and instructs users to obtain it via stock_irm_cninfo(). It also specifies type str. This provides actionable 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 identifies the tool as '互动易-回答' (Interactive Q&A - Answer) and states it returns an answer (回答). It distinguishes from the sibling tool stock_irm_cninfo by instructing the user to obtain the symbol from that function. However, the label '提问者编号' (questioner number) may be ambiguous; the URL parameter suggests it's a question ID.

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?

It provides an explicit dependency chain: call ak.stock_irm_cninfo() to obtain the symbol, then use this tool. This helps the agent understand the workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe alternative approaches.

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