stock_notice_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas DataFrame), the source URL, and the filtering options for symbol and date, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss rate limits or data freshness, but does not contradict the annotations.

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 structured like a docstring with a source URL, parameter definitions, and a return type. It is information-dense without unnecessary fluff, though the URL could arguably be omitted. The format is easy to scan.

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?

With two simple parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the data source, the filtering capabilities, and the return type. However, it does not mention any pagination or data size limitations, which would be relevant for a broad announcement feed. Overall, it is adequate for correct usage.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully enumerates the allowed values for symbol (e.g., 全部, 重大事项, etc.) and describes date as the announcement date with a default format hint via the schema's default value '20220511'. This is strong compensation, though the date format could be more explicit.

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 retrieving Shanghai/Shenzhen/Beijing A-share announcements from the East Money data center, including the source URL and parameter details. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stock_individual_notice_report by specifying the market-wide scope, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 parameter documentation but no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools, such as stock_individual_notice_report for single-stock notices. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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