stock_staq_net_stop

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds the source URL and return type but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or potential scraping delays. It adds minimal context beyond the 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 title and URL. It uses a structured docstring format with :return: and :rtype:, which is clear. There is some redundancy (the board name repeats), but overall it is concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter data retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description provides the source and return type but lacks details about the DataFrame's columns, data freshness, or any caveats (e.g., includes only currently listed delisted stocks). The absence of an output schema means the agent cannot know what fields to expect, making this description minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain any parameters, and there is no parameter information to add beyond the schema, which correctly defines an empty object.

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 resource as the '两网及退市' (two networks and delisted stocks) board from Eastmoney, with a specific URL. It states the return type as pandas.DataFrame, making it evident this is a data retrieval tool for that particular board. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', the :return: field implies retrieval, and the board name distinguishes it from sibling tools for other boards.

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?

The description implies usage context by naming a specific board and providing a URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the board name and sibling tool names that this is for 'two networks and delisted' data.

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