stock_board_concept_hist_em

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 Eastmoney source URL and pandas.DataFrame return type, but does not disclose pagination, data availability, rate limits, or adjustment behavior beyond the parameter choices.

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 structure is readable and starts with the data source and subject, but it includes a contradictory duplicate `param period` line and a raw URL that does not help invocation. It is short but not fully clean or front-loaded.

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 five-parameter historical data tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description omits critical invocation details: date string format, symbol naming conventions, defaults, and correct period semantics. Annotations only cover safety, so the description is not complete enough for reliable parameter use.

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. It lists all five parameters and gives choices for period/adjust, but `period` is mislabeled as '板块名称' and duplicated, date formats/defaults are absent, and symbol expected values are not explained.

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 first line identifies the source and subject as Eastmoney historical quotes for concept boards, which is specific enough to distinguish it from spot or minute board data. However, it essentially restates the title/name rather than using an explicit verb like 'get historical price data', and it does not name sibling exclusions.

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 such as stock_board_concept_hist_min_em, stock_board_industry_hist_em, or stock_board_concept_spot_em. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase '历史行情'.

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