stock_zdhtmx_em

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds date-range parameter semantics and a pandas.DataFrame return type. However, the stated return object ('股东大会' – shareholders' meeting) contradicts the tool's stated purpose of major contract details, reducing trust in the output description.

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 title, URL, parameter docs, and return type. It is reasonably structured but includes an unnecessary URL and a misleading return value ('股东大会'). The error and redundancy prevent a higher score.

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, so the description must explain what the returned DataFrame contains. It incorrectly states the return is '股东大会' instead of the expected major contract details. For a simple two-parameter tool, this missing/incorrect output description is a significant gap that could cause an agent to misinterpret results.

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 carries full burden. It clearly documents both start_date and end_date with Chinese labels, types (str), and concrete format examples (e.g., 20200819). This gives an agent all necessary information to set parameters correctly.

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 '重大合同明细' (major contract details) from East Money Data Center and provides the source URL. The title is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, though no explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' is used. The incorrect return type ('股东大会') slightly muddies the purpose.

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 alternative stock data tools. The description only documents parameters and returns, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools. This is a clear gap given the large sibling set.

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