stock_lhb_traderstatistic_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only a source URL and return type, with no behavioral details such as data freshness, pagination, or limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description contributes minimal extra transparency.

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 well-structured with a title, URL, parameter, and return type. The first line repeats the title unnecessarily, but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.

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?

Given the large number of closely related stock_lhb_* tools, the description does not clarify what specifically '营业部统计' means or how it differs from alternatives like stock_lhb_yyb_detail_em. It lacks the disambiguation needed for an agent to confidently select this 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 schema has no description for the symbol parameter, but the description explicitly lists the allowed values ('近一月', '近三月', '近六月', '近一年') and the type. This is critical for correct invocation, effectively compensating for the schema gap.

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's first line is identical to the title, and the return type is the same phrase (营业部统计). It does not state an explicit action or clarify what the tool retrieves beyond what the name already implies. The URL and parameter info add some context, but the core purpose remains a restatement of the title.

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 the many other stock_lhb_* sibling tools. No mention of alternatives, exclusions, or situational context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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