stock_zt_pool_sub_new_em

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data source (Eastmoney), the specific quote page URL, and that the date parameter is a trading day, returning a pandas DataFrame. It does not disclose details like required date format, data columns, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the source and pool type, followed by a URL and a clear Python-style docstring for the parameter and return value. Every line adds needed information without redundancy.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic invocation: the source, the pool category, the date parameter's role, and the return type. It lacks only a clear explanation of the expected date format and a definition of '次新股', though the default value and tool name offer partial clues.

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 input schema only defines a 'date' string with a default value but no description. The description compensates by documenting ':param date: 交易日' (trading day) and ':type date: str', which clarifies the intended parameter semantics beyond the 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 identifies the resource as '东方财富网-行情中心-涨停板行情-次新股池' (Eastmoney Market Center Limit-up Board Sub-New Stock Pool) and specifies the return as '次新股池', clearly indicating it retrieves the sub-new stock pool. It distinguishes from sibling pool tools by naming the specific pool type, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 sibling pool tools (e.g., stock_zt_pool_em, stock_zt_pool_previous_em). It only states the source and return type, leaving the selection decision to inference from the name.

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