stock_sy_yq_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or output details. This is minimal but not redundant.

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 a compact docstring with source URL, parameter, and return type. It is efficient and has no waste, though the title line repeats the source rather than front-loading the function's action.

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 fetch tool, the description provides source, parameter, and return type, with annotations covering safety. However, no output schema exists, and the description doesn't describe the returned columns or any filtering behavior, leaving some ambiguity about the data's structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says '参考网站指定的数据日期' (refer to the website's specified date), which is vague and doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) beyond the default. The description adds little meaningful semantics over the schema.

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 states the tool fetches '商誉减值预期明细' (goodwill impairment expectation details) from East Money's data center, with a specific URL. This is a specific verb+resource, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like stock_sy_em, so it misses the top score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the date parameter, which is implied rather than explicitly contextualized.

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