stock_institute_hold

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that data starts from 2005 and the return is a pandas.DataFrame, but says nothing about pagination, coverage breadth, or failure modes.

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 content is reasonable in size, but the raw docstring formatting (URL line, :param/:type/:return/:rtype) is not front-loaded and mixes source URL boilerplate with operational detail, diluting readability.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials: source, param encoding, and return type. It stops short of the coverage/when-to-use detail an agent needs to choose it confidently over its sibling.

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 carries the burden for the single 'symbol' parameter. It does explain the year+quarter encoding ('20191' = 2019 Q1, with the 1/2/3/4 quarter mapping), which is genuinely valuable, but the unusually-named parameter and boundary values are only partially clarified.

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 (机构持股一览表 / institutional holdings list) from a specific source (Sina Finance), so the agent knows what data it returns. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool stock_institute_hold_detail, which an agent would otherwise struggle to disambiguate.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given the near-identical sibling 'stock_institute_hold_detail' exists in the tool list, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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