stock_cg_lawsuit_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it returns an empty DataFrame when the source has no records. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or query constraints, so a 3 is appropriate.

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-loads the source/endpoint identification before the parameter block. There is minor redundancy between the title and the first line, but nothing is padded and the structure is easy to scan.

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 3-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials plus a return-type note. However, it omits the date string format and gives no hint about the shape or columns of the returned DataFrame, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to supply.

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 coverage is 0% and no parameter has an enum, so the description carries real weight here: it supplies the five allowed values for symbol ({'全部','深市主板','沪市','创业板','科创板'}) and labels the two date bounds. The only shortfall is that the date format (implied YYYYMMDD by the defaults) is never stated.

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 a specific resource: company-litigation data ('公司诉讼') from the CNINFO data center's corporate-governance thematic statistics. That is concrete and actionable, but it does not differentiate this tool from closely related CNINFO corporate-governance siblings such as stock_cg_equity_mortgage_cninfo or stock_cg_guarantee_cninfo, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The description lists source and parameters only, so an agent gets no help deciding whether this or a sibling corporate-governance endpoint is the right call.

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