stock_hold_num_cninfo

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 a useful behavioral constraint (data available only from 20170331 onward) and the underlying API endpoint, which is context beyond the annotations, but no pagination or volume behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the source and resource name, followed by the URL and a compact Sphinx-style param/return block. No filler sentences, though the raw URL contributes little selection value.

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-param, no-output-schema tool the description is adequate: it states the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the date constraint. It does not explain what columns or dimensions the DataFrame carries (e.g. concentration metrics), which would help an agent judge result suitability, but the core need is met.

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. It does: it enumerates the valid date forms (XXXX0331/0630/0930/1231) and states the earliest supported date, which the bare string schema does not. Good compensation for a single param, though the default value 20210630 is 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 description names a specific resource and scope: 股东人数及持股集中度 (shareholder count and holding concentration) from CNINFO's data center. An agent can tell this is a shareholder-structure statistics tool. However, it does not differentiate from the many other stock_hold_* siblings, so the boundary is left implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named among the large stock_hold_*/stock_gdfx_* sibling set. The only contextual hint is the data-source URL, which tells where the data comes from but not when to select this tool.

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