stock_market_pe_lg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like data frequency, historical depth, or any limitations.

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, consisting of a title, URL, and docstring-style param/return lines. It is not excessively verbose, though the URL and docstring formatting could be streamlined; the content is directly relevant.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, with no output schema, it fails to describe the structure or time span of the returned PE data, and the title's '主板' (main board) label conflicts with the inclusion of 创业板 and 科创版, creating mild ambiguity.

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 provides only a type and default for 'symbol' with no enum or description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explicitly listing the allowed values {'上证', '深证', '创业板', '科创版'} and the meaning of the parameter as the target market for PE data, making parameter semantics fully specified.

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 providing PE ratio data for Chinese stock markets via the title '乐咕乐股-主板市盈率' and the return statement '指定市场的市盈率数据'. It is specific about the resource (market PE) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool stock_index_pe_lg, which may serve a similar 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 versus alternatives such as stock_index_pe_lg or stock_market_pb_lg. It only describes the parameter and return value, leaving selection criteria entirely to the agent.

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