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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does: it discloses the 1-4 option return shape, that option explanations are model-generated, that quality degrades without the X-LLM-Key header (raw candidates only), and the precise meaning of the needs_clarification flag. Auth context and degraded-mode behavior are both covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized under clear markers (when-to-use, caveats, exclusions), with the most decision-relevant information first. It is somewhat dense and emoji-heavy, but each line carries distinct actionable content rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still supplies the two decision-critical flags (needs_clarification, chosen_code) and the X-LLM-Key dependency. For a disambiguation gatekeeper tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents q fully (raw question, passed verbatim without simplification). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline of 3 correct.

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+scope: ask the user when the entity reference is ambiguous, returning 1-4 annotated candidates rather than choosing for the caller. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings with '本工具不查数据，只做消歧' and names ashare_agent_search / ashare_quote as the follow-up tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('用户只给了模糊名称…不确定指哪家公司时') and when-not-to-use (it does not fetch data; use ashare_agent_search or ashare_quote after obtaining the code). It also explains the escape hatch: when needs_clarification=false the ambiguity is already resolved and chosen_code should be used directly.

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