stock_register_all_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful context by specifying the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, but it does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as data coverage, pagination, or the evident scope inconsistency between 'all' and 'STAR Market'.

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 short and not verbose, but its structure is a raw dump of a title, URL, and Sphinx-style return directives. The first line merely restates the tool name/title, which wastes space; the rest is functional but poorly organized.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of numerous sibling register-related tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'all' means in contrast to stock_register_kcb, stock_register_cyb, etc., nor does it explain the exact contents of the returned DataFrame beyond 'audit results'. The internal scope mismatch further undermines completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool's name in Chinese ('东方财富网-数据中心-新股数据-IPO审核信息-全部') followed by a URL and return type. It lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'return', and it inconsistently states '全部' (all) in the title but says the return is only '科创板注册制审核结果' (STAR Market audit results), creating ambiguity about whether this covers all boards or just the STAR Market.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools such as stock_register_kcb, stock_register_sh, stock_register_sz, etc. The description does not explain the distinction between 'all' and the individual market-specific register tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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