stock_zt_pool_previous_em

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type but no additional behavioral context (e.g., data freshness, empty results, or format assumptions). It does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded with the title, includes the source URL, and uses a clear docstring-style format. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the title and return line are somewhat redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only repeats the tool name for the return value ('昨日涨停股池') without describing the DataFrame's columns or content. The ambiguity between the 'date' parameter and the word 'previous' is unresolved, leaving the agent uncertain about what data to expect.

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 no description for 'date', so the description's ':param date: 交易日' and ':type date: str' provide basic meaning. However, it lacks specifics on the expected format (though the default suggests YYYYMMDD) and the relationship between the given date and the 'previous' day, which is a key semantic gap.

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 states the tool retrieves '昨日涨停股池' (yesterday's limit-up stock pool) from East Money, which is a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling stock_zt_pool_* tools, though the name 'previous' hints at the distinction.

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 the numerous sibling limit-up pool tools (e.g., stock_zt_pool_em, stock_zt_pool_strong_em). The description only mentions a date parameter but does not explain the intended context or alternatives.

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