stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_yearly_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the upstream source (东方财富) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not disclose pagination, date coverage, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the docstring is short, but the raw source URL line and the :rtype/:return boilerplate add little beyond restating the return type. Mostly efficient with some filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally complete: it states source, scope (yearly) and return type. It omits what columns/periods the DataFrame contains and the symbol format, which an output schema would otherwise have covered.

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 the parameter burden, and it does add the key constraint that symbol must include a market prefix (带市场标识). However it gives no format example or list of accepted market prefixes, so it only partially compensates for the 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 names a specific verb (financial-analysis fetch), resource (cash flow statement, 现金流量表) and a distinguishing scope (按年度, by year), with the data source East Money identified. It is separable from siblings like stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_quarterly_em and stock_cash_flow_sheet_by_report_em, though it never explicitly states retrieval as the action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this yearly variant versus the quarterly or by-report siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the inline note that the symbol needs a market identifier. The agent gets no routing help across the many financial-statement tools.

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