stock_report_disclosure

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or potential errors. It does not contradict the annotations, hence a 3.

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 a concise docstring with URL, parameters, and return type. It is efficient with no redundant text, though the layout is more technical than natural language, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the source, parameters, and return type, but does not describe the output columns or data granularity, leaving some ambiguity about the exact contents of the returned DataFrame.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It fully describes the market parameter with a mapping of Chinese labels to codes, but the period parameter is vague ('最近四期的财报') with no explicit valid values, and it conflicts slightly with the schema default '2021年报.' Thus it adds meaningful but incomplete parameter 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 description clearly identifies the resource (CNInfo scheduled disclosure data) and the function (returns data for specified market and period), as evidenced by the URL and parameter/return documentation. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the resource URL, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists parameters and return type, with no mention of eligible use cases, exclusions, or related tools. This is a clear gap.

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