stock_zh_a_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-structured context: a scraping rate limit that can cause IP blocking, plus the exact adjust-mode semantics (qfq/hfq/factor). This is real value beyond annotations.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the docstring-style :param/:type/:return boilerplate and a raw finance.sina.com URL add length. Given the 0% schema coverage the param lines earn their place, but the structure is closer to raw source docs than a curated definition.

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 read-only history tool with no output schema, the description covers source, params, adjust semantics, and the key operational risk (IP ban). It is essentially complete for correct invocation, with only minor gaps in date-format specification.

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, and it does document all four params: symbol format example, date-string format, and the adjust modes with defaults. It adds meaning the schema does not, though formats like 'YYYYMMDD' are only shown by example rather than stated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('新浪财经 - A股 - 个股的历史行情数据'), which is immediately clear. It also names the data source (Sina) which is what distinguishes it from the 东财 (stock_zh_a_hist) and 腾讯 (stock_zh_a_hist_tx) siblings, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 rate-limit warning ('大量抓取容易封 IP') implies when to use cautiously, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-another-source guidance. The agent must infer that this is a Sina-sourced daily history endpoint from the sibling names alone.

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