stock_share_hold_change_sse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but says nothing about output columns, pagination, or data range. With annotations present, this level of extra context is 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 compact and well-structured: a title line, source URL, and docstring-style param/return annotations. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned DataFrame contains, but it only repeats '董监高人员股份变动' without column names or examples. It also does not clarify the valid values for symbol ('全部' vs a specific code) or mention data coverage. The tool is simple, but these gaps leave an agent uncertain about the result structure and parameter constraints.

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's docstring is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that symbol accepts '全部' or a specific stock code, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not enumerate the exact allowed values or clarify that the parameter is optional (despite the schema default).

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 names the exact resource: '上海证券交易所-披露-监管信息公开-公司监管-董董监高人员股份变动' (SSE disclosure of shareholding changes by directors/supervisors). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools for other exchanges (e.g., _szse, _bse) by explicitly mentioning Shanghai Stock Exchange. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the intent to retrieve this data is clear.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: this tool is for SSE-listed company shareholding changes. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stock_share_hold_change_szse or stock_share_hold_change_bse), nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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