stock_register_db

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a URL, but does not disclose any other behaviors such as data freshness, pagination, or error handling. Given the simple read-only nature, 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 extremely brief and to the point: it gives the data source, a URL, the semantic meaning, and the return type in three lines. There is no redundant text, though the lack of a fuller description is a slight drawback.

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?

For a parameterless read-only tool, this is minimally complete: it states the origin, the content (qualified enterprises from IPO review), and the DataFrame return. However, it does not describe the DataFrame columns or any specifics about the data, and the absence of an output schema leaves the agent guessing about the exact structure. The simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable but not excellent.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 identifies the data source and content ('IPO审核信息-达标企业') and states the return type, but it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'fetch' or 'list') and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like stock_register_cyb or stock_register_all_em that likely serve similar purposes. It is more a title than a functional description.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool should be used. It simply states the data source and return type.

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