stock_profile_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific exception behavior (raises Exception if server data cannot be parsed) and states the return type. This is useful but limited; no mention of rate limits, authentication, or response content details.

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 labeled docstring sections and a URL. It front-loads the title and includes only essential technical details. The URL, while not strictly necessary, is not excessive. No redundant or vague prose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers input, return type, and error behavior. However, it does not specify the exact content of the company profile (column names, fields), market coverage (A-shares, B-shares, etc.), or any data update frequency. Given the lack of output schema, more detail on return values would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'symbol' as '股票代码' (stock code) with type str, which is basic but meaningful. However, it lacks details like format (e.g., 6-digit code), exchange-specific examples, or any guidance beyond the raw term. The description adds some value over the bare schema.

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 resource as '公司概况' (company profile) for an individual stock from CNINFO, with a return type of pandas.DataFrame. It does not explicitly state a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the return documentation implies data fetching. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the source (CNINFO) and name provide some differentiation.

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 is purely a docstring with parameter, return, and exception details. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_individual_info_em or stock_hk_company_profile_em. No context about market scope (A-share, H-share) or prerequisites is given.

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