stock_profit_sheet_by_yearly_em

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 that data comes from a remote Eastmoney endpoint (open-world, network-dependent) and that the symbol must carry a market prefix, which is modestly useful additional context, but it says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, 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 description is short and front-loaded: the resource and scope come first, followed by the source URL and the standard param/return doc lines. The URL is somewhat extraneous but plausibly useful for provenance; nothing is bloated.

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 essential contract (what is fetched, what the input is, that a DataFrame is returned). What is missing is the disambiguation from the quarterly/report income-statement siblings, which matters a lot given the crowded namespace around it.

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 partially does: '股票代码；带市场标识' clarifies that the symbol is a stock code including a market identifier, which is more than the bare string in the schema (though the default 'SH600519' already hints at the format). It does not document accepted market prefixes or exchange suffixes.

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 the source (东方财富), the resource (利润表/income statement), the sub-resource scope (财务分析), and the granularity (按年度), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like stock_profit_sheet_by_quarterly_em or stock_profit_sheet_by_report_em, leaving the 'yearly' distinction to be inferred from the name.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the quarterly/report alternatives that a caller must choose between. The choice of this tool over its three near-identical siblings is left entirely to the agent's inference from the tool name.

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