stock_yysj_em

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's burden is lower. It adds genuinely useful context beyond those flags: the data is sourced from Eastmoney's data center and the date coverage begins at 20081231, which tells the agent the boundaries of the dataset. It does not describe pagination, row counts, or freshness.

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-loads the source/resource identity, then lays out parameters compactly. The raw source URL and RST field markers are inherited docstring scaffolding rather than synthesized prose, but they occupy little space and cause no ambiguity.

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?

With only two optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the data represents, valid values for both inputs, and the date-range start. Return format is stated (:rtype: pandas.DataFrame), so nothing material is left unspecified.

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% and the schema has no descriptions or enums, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it does: it enumerates all seven valid symbol values and gives concrete date examples while stating the earliest supported period (20081231). This is well above the baseline for an undocumented schema, though it doesn't explain the date format convention beyond examples.

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 a specific resource (东方财富数据中心年报季报预约披露时间) with a clear domain and data source, so an agent can tell this returns scheduled earnings-disclosure dates rather than actual results. It stops short of naming or distinguishing itself from nearby siblings like stock_yjkb_em, stock_yjyg_em, or stock_report_disclosure, but the verb+resource pairing is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The parameter choices (symbol, date) implicitly define the scope, but the agent receives no statement of when this tool is preferable to the adjacent reporting-related siblings.

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