stock_yjbb_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 the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the valid date range (starting from 20100331), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose details like data freshness or rate limits.

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 follows a docstring style with some redundancy: the URL and both :type: and :rtype: lines add little for an AI agent. The core information is front-loaded, but the extra elements reduce conciseness without adding actionable value.

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, read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail to call it correctly: it specifies the data source, return type, and parameter format. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling tools, but that is not essential for invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing the date format (YYYYMMDD), four example quarter-end values, and the earliest supported date (20100331). It does not explain that the date represents a report period end, but the examples make this clear enough for invocation.

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-数据中心) and the exact resource (业绩报表), making it clear that it retrieves a performance report. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_yjkb_em (业绩快报) or stock_yjyg_em (业绩预告), leaving some ambiguity about its precise scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only lists the source and parameter details, offering no context for selection among the many sibling financial data tools.

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