stock_profit_sheet_by_report_em

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context such as the data source URL, the requirement that 'symbol' include a market identifier (带市场标识), and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like data range, update frequency, or potential missing data conditions.

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: source title, URL, parameter documentation with type and default, and return documentation. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant prose. The main content is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of safety annotations, the description covers the essential information: what data is retrieved, the parameter requirement, and the return type. However, it does not clarify the meaning of '报告期' (report period) in terms of which specific reporting periods are included, nor does it address possible data availability issues or the structure of the returned DataFrame. This is satisfactory but not comprehensive.

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 only defines a single parameter 'symbol' with a default value and no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that the symbol must include a market identifier (带市场标识) and provides a default example (SH600519). This gives the agent essential information for parameter formatting, but it does not explain the full set of valid market prefixes or the exact format expected, leaving some ambiguity.

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 East Money stock income statement (profit sheet) data for the report period, with a URL for reference. It distinguishes from siblings like the quarterly or yearly variants by explicitly stating '报告期' (report period) in both name and description. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the implicit function of the tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., stock_profit_sheet_by_quarterly_em, stock_profit_sheet_by_yearly_em, or delisted versions). The only context is the 'report period' label, which implies a specific period type, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description does not help an agent choose among the many related financial statement tools.

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