stock_zh_scale_comparison_em

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the return type is pandas.DataFrame and the return content is '公司规模', which is a minimal addition. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as network dependency, performance characteristics, or handling of invalid symbols. No contradiction with annotations, but little extra value.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is not well-structured. It consists of a title, a URL, and type annotations mixed across lines. There is no complete sentence, and the structure is fragmented. It is under-specified rather than elegantly concise, so it does not earn a higher score for structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It lacks critical context such as the expected format of the symbol, the specific data fields returned, and how this tool fits into the broader set of comparison tools. The URL provides a source reference but does not explain the data. The description leaves the agent with substantial ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the symbol parameter. It merely states ':type symbol: str', which repeats the schema's type declaration. The default value 'SZ000895' in the schema hints at the format, but the description itself provides no semantic meaning, no format explanation, and no example of valid values. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 title '东方财富-行情中心-同行比较-公司规模' clearly indicates this tool provides company scale (公司规模) comparison from Eastmoney's market center. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_zh_growth_comparison_em and stock_zh_valuation_comparison_em by focusing on scale. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', making it a noun phrase rather than a full functional description.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The bare title and URL offer no contextual hints about selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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