stock_restricted_release_detail_em

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral traits: it only mentions a return type of pandas.DataFrame and a website URL, without disclosing rate limits, pagination, authentication needs, or any quirks of the underlying API. Relative to the annotations, the description contributes minimal behavioral 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 contains no fluff: it gives the title, URL, and two parameter definitions. Every line serves a purpose. However, the structure is flat and not well organized; it reads as a single block of Chinese text plus parameter docs, which could be clearer with separators or an explicit summary. Still, it is appropriately concise.

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 tool, the description is incomplete. It omits the date format required for start_date/end_date, does not explain what columns the returned DataFrame contains, and provides no differentiation from several sibling tools on restricted share releases. The presence of annotations and the simple schema lower the burden, but the missing date format and usage context are critical gaps.

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 two string parameters with defaults but no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description merely restates the parameter names and types in Chinese ('开始时间'/'结束时间') without specifying the required date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), the valid range, or whether filtering is inclusive. The default values in the schema hint at the format, but the description does not clarify it, leaving critical ambiguity for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 opens with the tool's title '东方财富网-数据中心-限售股解禁-解禁详情一览', which is a noun phrase describing a list of restricted share unlock details. It clearly identifies the resource (restricted share unlock details) but lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', and does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as stock_restricted_release_summary_em or stock_restricted_release_queue_em. Thus it is more than a tautology but still not a fully specified purpose.

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 only provides the source URL and parameter documentation, without mentioning any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It neither states when this tool is appropriate nor names any related tools for alternative data sources.

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