stock_restricted_release_queue_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description needn't cover safety. It adds a source URL and return type, but it does not clarify symbol prefix expectations (URL shows sh600000 while schema default is 600000) or what the DataFrame contains. Adequate but not rich.

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 follows a clear docstring structure: title, URL, params, and return. The source URL adds provenance even if slightly cluttered. No wasted prose, though the title repeats the annotation.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description states that a DataFrame is returned and identifies the data category, but it does not specify the release queue content, date range, or how it differs from sibling versions. It is minimally sufficient but has clear 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain the parameter. It only says ':param symbol: 股票代码', which essentially restates the property name, and does not clarify whether the exchange prefix is required or what data fields are returned. The URL example with sh600000 conflicts with the default 600000 without explanation.

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 tool as returning Sina Finance restricted-share release (限售解禁) data for a stock code, with a source URL and return type. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like stock_restricted_release_queue_em or stock_restricted_release_detail_em.

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. It provides no exclusions, context, or alternative tool names, which is a significant gap given the many sibling restricted-release tools. Usage is only implied as a data retrieval tool.

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