stock_report_fund_hold_detail

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the data source and the return type (pandas DataFrame), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.

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 concise and well-structured in a docstring format. Every line adds value: source URL, parameter definitions with types, and return type. No unnecessary information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description provides all necessary information: source, parameters, and return type. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but these are not critical for a basic data retrieval tool. Given the strong annotations and clear parameter documentation, it is adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It clearly explains both parameters: symbol is the fund code, and date is the report publication date with explicit allowed formats (xxxx-03-31 etc.). The example URL further illustrates the parameter usage.

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 the tool returns fund holdings detail data from East Money's data center, with a specific source URL. The name and description distinguish it from similar tools like stock_report_fund_hold by emphasizing '明细' (details).

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 clear context for when to use the tool via its parameter descriptions (symbol and date with specific formats) and the stated return type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for fund holding detail queries.

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