stock_zt_pool_dtgc_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds the source URL and the date parameter meaning, but it does not disclose behavior such as handling of invalid dates, empty results, or data update frequency. Given the strong annotation coverage, the additional context is minimal but not contradictory.

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 concise and structured as a docstring with source, URL, parameter, and return sections. It repeats the title from annotations in the first line, but the overall length is reasonable and information is easy to scan. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the input and return type (DataFrame), but it does not describe the columns or content of the returned DataFrame, nor does it provide an example call. Since the output schema is absent, the description should compensate more fully for what the data covers.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It states ':param date: 交易日' (trading day) and ':type date: str', which clarifies that the input is a trading date string. However, it does not specify the format beyond the default value '20241011', nor does it mention optionality or consequences of omitting it. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 resource as '跌停股池' (limit-down stock pool) from East Money's limit-up board section, and the docstring explicitly states the return is a pandas DataFrame of that pool. It distinguishes from sibling tools by name (dtgc) and the '跌停股池' term. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'get', relying on the docstring's :return: clause.

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 the many related stock_zt_pool_* siblings. It does not state that this is for limit-down pools specifically or mention any exclusions. The 'dtgc' suffix and '跌停股池' term imply it, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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