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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 1~20 input ceiling, the exact shape of what comes back per stock (mention counts over N days, institution count, concepts, max 3 summaries), and notably that each call is billed as one charge — a cost trait not present in any structured field.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the input format, then the return shape and the billing note. Little waste, though the opening phrase largely repeats the title and the parenthetical billing note could be integrated more smoothly.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (per-stock mention counts, institution coverage, concepts, up to 3 summaries) while also disclosing the batch limit and per-call billing. Minor gaps remain: no indication of error behavior for invalid or excess codes, and no note on how results are ordered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the 1~30 day range and the 1~20 comma-separated code format. The description restates those constraints and adds only the mild clarification that short names are accepted alongside codes; it contributes little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: batch check of watchlist stocks returning mention counts, institution coverage, concepts, and up to 3 opinion summaries. The '批量' (batch, 1~20 codes) framing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-stock siblings such as get_stock_heat_panel and get_stock_concept_heat, but it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by the '自选股批量体检' framing and the 1~20 code limit — an agent can infer this is the multi-stock path. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over the per-stock heat tools, nor any when-not guidance or prerequisite.

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