stock_irm_cninfo

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is partially known. However, the description adds almost no behavioral detail beyond these annotations, stating only "提问" (question) as the return type without describing data scope, format, or edge cases. The hard-coded URL is not informative and may confuse the agent about expected inputs.

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 short but disjointed, mixing a title, a sample URL, and a docstring without a coherent narrative. The URL is unnecessary and consumes space without conveying actionable guidance. A single, well-structured paragraph would be far more effective.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clearly explain the return value and usage context. It only says ":return: 提问" (question), which is vague, and omits details about the data source, freshness, or limitations. The description is inadequate even for a simple tool.

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 description includes a docstring for the `symbol` parameter, defining it as a stock code (股票代码), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the expected format, exchange, or constraints, and the default value "002594" implies but does not explicitly state that it expects Chinese A-share codes.

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 consists only of the title "互动易-提问" and a docstring snippet, with no explicit statement of what the tool does. It fails to use a clear verb+resource structure and does not distinguish itself from similar tools like stock_irm_ans_cninfo. The example URL referencing a specific question detail page further obscures the tool's intended function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternative tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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