stock_restricted_release_stockholder_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is modest extra context but nothing about rate limits, caching, or error 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?

Sphinx-style docstring with :param/:type/:return/:rtype boilerplate that is somewhat redundant, plus a bare URL that adds minimal value. It is not bloated, but it is not front-loaded prose either – the operational cue about acquiring the date is buried in the param block.

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 two-parameter data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers source, both inputs, and the return type reasonably. It still leaves the agent without sibling differentiation among the several restricted-release tools and without any pagination/shape expectations for the DataFrame.

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 burden. It documents both parameters: symbol as 股票代码 and date as a date obtainable via a sibling tool, adding meaning beyond the bare defaults in the schema. It does not explain the default values (600000 / 20200904), keeping it just short of a 5.

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 data provider (东方财富网-数据中心) and the resource precisely (个股限售解禁-解禁股东, i.e. restricted-share release by shareholder), which is a specific noun-resource distinct from the queue/detail/summary siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The description implicitly tells the agent how to obtain the date argument by pointing to ak.stock_restricted_release_queue_em(symbol="600000"), which is useful dependency context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against the many stock_restricted_release_* siblings (detail, queue, summary).

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