stock_register_sh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds only a source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, data freshness, or default selection of columns. This is minimal extra context.

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 very short and front-loaded with the title and URL, then the return type. It avoids verbosity, though it is more of a docstring fragment than a structured explanation. The brevity is appropriate for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 description identifies the data source, scope (Shanghai Main Board), and return type, but does not explain what fields the DataFrame contains, how the data is structured, or what 'IPO审核信息' includes. With no output schema, this leaves the agent without critical information about the returned data's content.

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, so the input schema is empty and there is nothing to describe. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is sufficient even though it adds no parameter-specific semantics.

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 title and description clearly identify the resource as IPO review information for the Shanghai Main Board from Eastmoney, and the return type is stated. However, there is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', relying on the noun phrase, so it is clear but not fully action-oriented.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as stock_register_sz, stock_register_cyb, or stock_register_all_em. There are no context indicators, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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