stock_share_hold_change_bse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the source URL and the symbol option ('全部' vs specific code), but does not disclose edge cases, such as handling of invalid stock codes or data coverage limits. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage 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 compact and follows a docstring pattern with title, URL, param, and return. The title line duplicates the annotation title, but the rest is efficient and well-structured with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame without detailing columns or data availability. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves the agent without information about the DataFrame's structure, which could impact downstream processing.

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 only defines 'symbol' as a string with default '430489' and no description. The description adds crucial meaning by stating the parameter accepts '全部' (all) or a specific stock code, which is essential for agent usage. However, it does not explicitly format the stock code requirement beyond the default example.

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 identifies the resource as Beijing Stock Exchange regulatory information on shareholding changes by directors, supervisors, and related personnel, and the tool name implies the retrieval action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools for SSE and SZSE via the explicit mention of '北京证券交易所'.

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 like stock_share_hold_change_sse or stock_share_hold_change_szse. The description only includes parameter and return documentation, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the exchange-specific name.

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