stock_profit_sheet_by_quarterly_em

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 that the return is a pandas.DataFrame and identifies the data source (东方财富), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as how missing symbols are handled or data update frequency. 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 structured as a docstring with title, URL, parameter, type, return, and return type, making it scannable and appropriately sized. The URL adds reference value without excessive verbosity, and every line earns its place.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main input and states that the return is a pandas.DataFrame containing the quarterly income statement. It does not enumerate columns or edge-case behaviors, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided source link, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully defines the 'symbol' parameter as the stock code with market identifier (股票代码; 带市场标识) and provides an example URL containing 'sh600519', clarifying the expected format. This compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves the income statement (利润表) by single quarter (按单季度) from Eastmoney's financial analysis section. It explicitly includes a URL and specifies the return type, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_profit_sheet_by_yearly_em or stock_profit_sheet_by_report_em via the '按单季度' qualifier.

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 a parameter specification and notes that the symbol must include the market identifier (带市场标识), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., yearly or report-based versions). The usage context is implied by the tool name and quarterly qualifier, but no direct when-to-use guidance is given.

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