stock_news_em

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the 100-news limit, data source (Eastmoney), and pandas DataFrame return type, but omits potential error cases or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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, combining a title, a reference URL, and structured docstring lines for parameter and return type. Every line adds information without fluff, though the URL could be considered optional.

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, read-only tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the source, and the fixed limit. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the stated return type, though exact columns of the DataFrame are not described.

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 single parameter `symbol` is documented as 股票代码 (stock code), and the example URL with keyword=603777 reinforces its meaning. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's bare type and default, making the parameter's purpose clear.

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 states the tool provides the latest 100 individual stock news from Eastmoney, including a sample URL and parameter documentation. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from generic news tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or recommend other tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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