stock_restricted_release_queue_em

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful source URL and indicates a pandas DataFrame return type, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, data scope, date limits, or the exact contents of the returned DataFrame. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's Chinese title and source URL, followed by concise param/return docstring lines. It contains some redundancy with the annotations title and schema type information, but overall there is no filler or excessive length.

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 one-parameter read-only data retrieval tool, the description is minimally usable: it identifies the source, parameter, and return type. However, with no output schema, it fails to describe the returned DataFrame's columns or semantics, and it does not explain what '解禁批次' contains or how this tool relates to the many restricted-release sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining 'symbol'. It provides the Chinese meaning '股票代码', confirms the type as str, and shows an example via the URL '600000'. This adds modest meaning beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain code format, valid values, or the default behavior when the parameter is omitted.

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 data domain and source through the Chinese title '东方财富网-数据中心-个股限售解禁-解禁批次' and the return statement '个股限售解禁', making it evident that this tool fetches restricted-share release batches for individual stocks from Eastmoney. However, it lacks an explicit verb like '获取/查询' and does not directly differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond the implied 'em' source and the given URL.

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 alternatives such as stock_restricted_release_queue_sina, stock_restricted_release_detail_em, or stock_restricted_release_summary_em. The description only states the data source, a single parameter, and the return type, leaving usage context and exclusions entirely unaddressed.

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