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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it is a billed call ('每次调用计费 1 次') and it enumerates exactly what statistical fields come back (heat_chg_1d / heat_chg_3d / heat_z20 as '纯统计量'), which is useful framing with no output schema present.

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?

It is a single dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the covered time windows and then the returned metrics, with the billing note last. Every clause carries information, though the title restates the leading phrase and the chained enumerations make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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 shouldered the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly — per-window counts, institution/KOL breakdowns, weighted heat, hourly series, and change/z-score statistics. What is missing is only cross-tool routing advice against the closely named sibling get_stock_heat_panel.

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%, and all three parameters already carry descriptions in the schema, including min_score's 1050 default. The description reinforces the '高分机构/大V' concept that min_score controls but adds no syntax, format, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond what the schema states. 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 gives a specific resource (single-stock heat trend) with an exact enumeration of the time windows returned (1h/4h/18h/24h/3d/7d) plus 24h hourly, which clearly separates it from aggregate/market-level siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_stock_heat_panel or get_stock_news_heat, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clause '适合盯单股热度怎么起来、怎么回落' gives a clear use case — tracking the rise and fall of one stock's heat — which is a concrete retrieval context. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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