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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('只读查询') and warns that market prices are not returned, which is a key behavioral trait. It also provides code format examples (sh vs sz) that reduce error risk. While it doesn't cover every possible behavior (e.g., rate limits), it adequately discloses the main safety and scope characteristics.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, then usage guidance, then warnings and format. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or padding.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only query tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, safety, and code format. Nothing essential is missing; the output schema handles return-value details.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter 'code' with an example, and coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful beyond that by explaining the code format distinction between Shanghai (sh) and Shenzhen (sz) and giving concrete examples, which helps the agent pass a valid value. This goes beyond the schema's bare minimum.

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 clear purpose: it provides full terms for convertible bonds, listing specific metrics (premium rate, conversion value, double-low value, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ashare_quote by noting that market prices are not covered, so an agent can instantly tell which tool to use.

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 description gives explicit usage conditions: 'use this when users ask about bond terms/strong redemption/double low/premium' and warns 'for bond market price, use ashare_quote'. This is textbook when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance that names the exact alternative.

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