stock_sy_hy_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the source URL and return type. It does not disclose date format expectations, pagination, or data scope, which would be valuable for a data-fetching tool.

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 not verbose, but it is poorly structured: it mixes a title, a raw URL, and docstring-style lines in a way that is not front-loaded or scannable. The first line reads like a page title rather than a clear description of tool behavior. It is brief but the organization detracts from clarity.

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 tool without an output schema, the description should still clarify what data is returned and how the date parameter works. It fails to reconcile the conflict between '行业商誉' (industry goodwill) in the title and '个股商誉明细' (individual stock goodwill details) in the return, and it does not describe the output columns or date range. This is insufficient given the large sibling toolset where differentiation is critical.

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 defines a single 'date' parameter with a default but no description (0% schema description coverage). The description says the date is '参考网站指定的数据日期' (the data date specified on the website), which adds a slight hint but still does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or any constraints. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a concrete resource: East Money's goodwill data page (行业商誉) with a URL, and states that it returns a pandas DataFrame of 个股商誉明细. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list,' and the return description ('个股商誉明细') conflicts with the title ('行业商誉'), creating ambiguity about whether this tool returns industry-level or individual-stock goodwill data.

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. The description simply gives a source URL and parameter docstring. With many sibling tools covering similar stock/goodwill data (e.g., stock_sy_em, stock_sy_jz_em), the absence of any differentiation makes it hard for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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