stock_zh_a_cdr_daily

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's genuinely additive contribution is the rate-limit/IP-ban warning, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It adds no detail about the shape or granularity of the returned data, hence not a 5.

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 docstring is functional but padded with a raw URL and a generic ':return: specific data' that earns little, plus repetitive Sphinx :param/:type pairs. Content is front-loaded reasonably but not tightly edited.

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 data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what the returned DataFrame contains; ':return: specific data' is uninformative. The rtype hint and the rate-limit warning partially compensate, but return-value expectations remain vague.

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 carries the burden. It supplies concrete examples ('20201103' implying YYYYMMDD date format, 'sh689009' implying a prefixed symbol) that the bare schema does not convey, although it does not reconcile the odd default '22201116' or the exact symbol format rules.

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 verb+resource (historical quote data) and a precise scope (Sina Finance, A-share, CDR individual stock), which separates it from broad siblings like stock_zh_a_daily or stock_us_daily. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It warns that bulk scraping easily triggers IP bans, which is a useful operational caveat, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as stock_zh_a_daily or stock_zh_a_hist. No when-to-use or exclusion criteria are stated.

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