stock_main_stock_holder

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only the top 5 shareholders are returned at a given time — but omits pagination, historical scope, or refresh behavior.

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-style Sphinx fields (:param/:type/:return/:rtype) are somewhat noisy for a single-parameter tool, though the top-5 caveat is useful. It is short but not tightly front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, listing the return type as pandas.DataFrame is sufficient, and the top-5 note is a valuable scoping detail. However, no output-schema means the agent gets no column/field structure, and the description does little to fill that gap.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does supply ':param stock: 股票代码' (stock code), which is better than nothing, but gives no format spec (e.g. 6-digit A-share code) other than a single incidental example, so the compensation is partial.

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 states the source and data domain (新浪财经-股本股东-主要股东, i.e. Sina Finance major shareholders) so the resource is identifiable, but it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and offers no differentiation from siblings like stock_circulate_stock_holder or stock_fund_stock_holder that cover similar ground.

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 or prerequisites. The only quasi-guidance is the P.S. about the top-5 limitation, which is a data constraint rather than a usage condition, and no alternative tool is named.

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