stock_zh_ah_daily

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 useful context beyond that: the data source (Tencent), the daily frequency, and that output is a pandas.DataFrame of historical quotes. It does not disclose rate limits, symbol-format quirks, or behavior for missing/empty ranges.

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 Sphinx-style docstring is functional but boilerplate-heavy, with :type/:rtype lines that repeat what the prose already says. Content is front-loaded with the source/resource line, but the structure is generic autogenerated documentation rather than a tuned tool description.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description does state the return type and granularity, which is the minimum needed. However, gaps remain around symbol formatting, default/empty year behavior, and failure modes, which matter for a parameterized historical-data fetch.

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 full burden, and it documents all four parameters. Notably it adds enum-like semantics for adjust ('qfq'=前复权, 'hfq'=后复权) that the schema does not encode, plus year semantics for start_year/end_year. It falls short of specifying symbol format (e.g., '02318' vs '01033').

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch daily-frequency historical quotes for HK AH stocks from Tencent Finance, with an example URL. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with closely related siblings such as stock_hk_daily or stock_zh_ah_spot, so differentiation rests entirely on the 'AH' cue in the name.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The example URL and the year-based framing imply a historical/quasi-time-series use case, but the agent is left to infer this entirely.

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