fund_new_found_ths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the symbol choices, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or freshness of the new-issue data, so it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 docstring is compact and front-loaded with the source/tool name and URL before the parameter and return blocks. Every line serves a purpose, though the inline URL is arguably discardable for an agent.

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 read-only data-fetch tool, this is adequate: the source, parameter choices, and return type are given, and annotations cover the safety profile with no output schema needed. It falls short on sibling differentiation (fund_new_found_em) and on any freshness or pagination behavior for the fund list.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it names the symbol parameter, labels it as the fund-type selector, gives the exact choice set {全部, 发行中, 将发行}, and specifies the type as str. Only the default value is left to 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 names a specific resource (新发基金 new-issue fund data) and identifies the source as 同花顺 (THS). It is clear about what the tool retrieves, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling fund_new_found_em, which is the Eastmoney counterpart for the same data class.

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 gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative fund_new_found_em or any other sibling. The only usage information is the symbol choice set, which is parameter-level rather than routing guidance.

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