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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds two genuinely useful facts beyond annotations: a per-call billing cost ("每次调用计费 1 次") and that invisible sectors are pre-filtered out of concept results. It says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or response shape, leaving those gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 aggregation payoff before the use case and the cost note. Every clause carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the aggregation twice ("一次拿到" and "单次调用聚合").

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 should carry more of the return contract; it names the three content sections but not their structure, ordering, or whether results can be empty. Combined with the billing and filtering notes it is adequate for a two-parameter read tool, but not thorough.

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 100% – both limit (1-30, default 10) and window (4h/24h/7d, default 24h) are fully documented in the schema. The description references the time window only vaguely as "窗口内" and adds no constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+outcome ("一次拿到" – get in a single call) and names the three resources aggregated: hottest A-shares, hottest concepts, and latest first-mention stocks. It implicitly separates itself from the single-purpose siblings (get_market_hot_stocks, get_market_hot_concepts, get_first_mention_stocks) by emphasizing aggregation, though it never names them.

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 gives concrete usage contexts – pre-market Agent briefings and scheduled research pushes – which tells an agent when this tool fits. It does not state when to prefer the individual sibling tools instead, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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