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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses hard limits (≤20 codes, ≤10 strategies, ≤60 combos), that over-limit fails loudly rather than silently truncating, that combo strategies are unsupported, and that it is a paid tool requiring Pro (¥69) with its own daily quota. It stops short of describing auth mechanics or response shape, but the safety/constraint profile is well 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?

The key point (batch multi-symbol × multi-strategy comparison) is front-loaded, followed by routing guidance and warnings. It is dense and emoji-heavy but nearly every clause earns its place; the formatting is slightly noisy but not padded.

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 not be explained, and the description still notes the comparison-matrix output. Combined with the limits, paid-tier requirement, and strategy-type restriction, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly versus its sibling.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: parameters may be passed as lists and are auto-converted to comma-separated strings, and per-parameter count ceilings are restated. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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+resource (批量回测: 多标的 × 多策略, returns a comparison matrix) and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ashare_backtest (single strategy). An agent can distinguish this tool from ashare_backtest and ashare_strategies without opening any schema.

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 names the exact user phrasings that should trigger this tool ('这几只股票用不同策略分别跑一下/批量回测/策略对比') and gives the alternative plus the condition selecting it (ashare_backtest for a single strategy). When-to-use and when-to-use-the-other are both explicit.

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