stock_irm_ans_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the symbol is a questioner ID obtained elsewhere and that the return type is str ('回答'); it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return shape beyond a bare type.

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 text is short but is a raw docstring dump: a URL, then ':param'/':type'/':return'/':rtype' tags with no front-loaded summary. Structure serves autodoc, not an agent deciding whether/how to call the tool.

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?

With no output schema and a single undocumented-schema parameter, the description should clarify what is returned and how the ID maps to a question. It offers only 'rtype: str' and an ambiguous ID definition, leaving the agent to guess.

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. It labels symbol as '提问者编号' (questioner ID), yet the embedded URL uses 'questionId=' and the default value looks like a question ID, creating ambiguity about what the parameter actually identifies.

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 is essentially the title label '互动易-回答' (Hudongyi - answer) plus a source URL and Sphinx docstring tags. It never states a clear verb like 'retrieve' or explains that it fetches the investor Q&A answer for a given question, so the purpose is largely inferred from the tool name rather than explained.

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 one implicit prerequisite: 'obtain the questioner ID via ak.stock_irm_cninfo()'. That is useful, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., stock_irm_cninfo, nlp_answer), nor any when-not guidance.

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