stock_zh_vote_baidu

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds source (Baidu) and data type (stock review votes) but does not disclose potential quirks like data freshness, column contents, or response details. It partially supplements the annotations.

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 brief but loosely structured, mixing a title, URL, and docstring-style parameter definitions. Every line carries information, but it lacks a coherent narrative and the URL may be unnecessary.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description plus annotations are sufficient to understand basic usage. However, without an output schema, it only says '投票数据' without explaining the DataFrame's structure or any caveats, so completeness is limited.

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 both parameters: symbol as 股票代码 and indicator with allowed values {'指数', '股票'}, which the input schema lacks. The example URL also hints at how the symbol is used, adding meaningful context beyond the bare 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 states the tool retrieves A-share or index stock review voting data from Baidu (百度股市通). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on prices, valuations, or other financial metrics.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives a title and parameter documentation, with no context for selection criteria or exclusion of other stock data tools.

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