stock_zh_a_disclosure_report_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the URL and return type but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or handling of invalid inputs. It also contains a typo where end_date is described as '开始时间' (start time), which is misleading.

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 structured docstring with URL, parameters, and return type. It is reasonably compact but lacks a concise opening sentence and contains a long list of category choices. It is acceptable but not optimally organized.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description must clearly explain the return value and usage. It only says '指定 symbol 的数据' (data for specified symbol), leaving the result structure and semantics ambiguous. It also does not explain how start_date/end_date work or what the tool is intended for beyond the title.

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 description provides Chinese labels for all six parameters and enumerates choices for market and category, which compensates for the schema lacking descriptions (0% coverage). However, the labels are often terse or tautological (e.g., 'keyword: 关键词'), and the date format is not specified, so the compensation is only partial.

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 lacks an explicit verb or clear statement of what the tool does. It provides a Chinese title and a URL, then lists parameters, but the action (e.g., querying disclosure reports) is only implied. It does not differentiate from siblings like stock_notice_report or stock_zh_a_disclosure_relation_cninfo.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely parameter documentation with no contextual usage information.

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