stock_hold_control_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 covered. The description adds useful but modest context: the upstream source (webapi.cninfo.com.cn) and the fact that data starts from 2010. Return shape and any pagination/rate limits are not addressed.

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 core title is front-loaded, but the body reads as a pasted docstring: a raw source URL, and :type/:rtype tags that restate obvious facts ('str', 'pandas.DataFrame'). Roughly half the text does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 stat query this is close to sufficient: domain, source, accepted values, and temporal coverage are all present, and the return value is characterized as a DataFrame of actual-controller holding changes. No output schema exists, so nothing further is strictly required.

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% and the schema exposes no enum, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter – and it does, listing all five accepted values {'单独控制','实际控制人','一致行动人','家族控制','全部'} plus the default-relevant note that coverage begins in 2010. Only the string type is redundant with 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 data domain (CNINFO data center, thematic statistics, shareholder equity, actual-controller holding changes) rather than being pure tautology, but it is essentially the tool title restated plus a source URL. It gives no differentiation from similar siblings such as stock_hold_change_cninfo, stock_hold_num_cninfo, or stock_share_change_cninfo.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-adjacent note is the data-coverage remark '(从 2010 开始)', which tells the agent nothing about selection conditions or prerequisites.

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