stock_zh_dupont_comparison_em

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is low. It adds only that the return type is a pandas DataFrame, with no detail on output structure, data scope, or any potential quirks. No new behavioral context is disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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, with a clear title, a reference URL, and structured docstring-style param/return info. The URL is somewhat extraneous but not distracting, and each line earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides core input and output information, but it fails to explain what the returned DataFrame actually contains (e.g., columns, rows, time period). Since there is no output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform an agent about the tool's expected result.

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 identifies the only parameter, 'symbol', as a stock code (股票代码) and specifies its type as str. This adds basic meaning since the schema has no description. However, it does not explain the required format (e.g., exchange prefix), although the default 'SZ000895' serves as a partial hint.

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 tool as Eastmoney's DuPont analysis peer comparison, distinguishing it from sibling comparison tools like growth or valuation comparisons via the specific '杜邦分析' term. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the tool name and context make the action clear.

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 comparison tools. It does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and title.

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