stock_report_fund_hold

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds the source URL and return type (DataFrame). It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This meets the lower bar set by the annotations.

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 compact docstring with a clear structure: source, parameters, and return type. Every line provides useful information, and there is no fluff. It is not overly long given the need to document two parameters and the return type.

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 read-only data fetch with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the source, symbol enums, date format, and return type. It is largely complete, but the minor date-format inconsistency and lack of clarity on output columns keep it from being a 5.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing the symbol choices and explaining the date format with examples. However, the date format in the description (with dashes, e.g., 2020-12-31) conflicts with the schema default (without dashes, e.g., 20210331), creating ambiguity. This prevents a higher score.

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 states that this tool retrieves fund holdings data from Eastmoney's Data Center, specifying the source URL and the available symbol categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like stock_report_fund_hold_detail, so it stops 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 allowed parameter values and date formats, which is a form of usage guidance. However, it gives no context on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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