stock_restricted_release_summary_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 upstream source URL and that the return is a pandas.DataFrame, but discloses nothing additional about behavior such as rate limits, pagination, or freshness. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

It is a compact Sphinx-style docstring with front-loaded source information, but the raw URL and :type:/:rtype: plumbing are boilerplate that add bulk without much value. Every element is defensible yet not tightly optimized.

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 3-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description covers the parameters and names the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is enough to invoke it. It is missing the one thing that would really help — what distinguishes this summary endpoint from the sibling restricted-release tools.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it documents all three parameters including an enumerated choice set for symbol (全部股票/沪市A股/科创板/深市A股/创业板/京市A股) that the schema does not contain at all. start_date/end_date are labeled but not given format details, and the sample URL implies a date-range semantics.

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 source (东方财富网-数据中心) and the resource (限售股解禁 / restricted-share release) and links the exact statistics page. However it offers no verb framing and no differentiation from close siblings such as stock_restricted_release_detail_em, stock_restricted_release_queue_em, or stock_restricted_release_stockholder_em, so an agent cannot easily tell what makes this the 'summary' variant.

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, no mention of when an alternative sibling is preferable, and no prerequisites or context for selecting this tool over the other restricted-release tools. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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