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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how invalid codes are handled, or any side effects. The example code hints at usage but does not explain behavior beyond the data content.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and the key metrics. There is no wasted text, though the example could be more structured. It is efficient but not fully elaborated.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description need not explain return values. It lists the specific metrics, which is useful. However, it lacks any usage context, such as how to obtain the code or when to prefer this tool. For a single-parameter tool, it is mostly adequate but leaves the agent with some ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a concrete example 'code=sh113052', implying the code is the convertible bond identifier. This is helpful but not explicit; it does not fully define the parameter format or accepted values.

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 clearly states the tool provides convertible bond terms, listing specific metrics (premium rate, double low, strong redemption trigger price, conversion price). The resource (convertible bonds) and the kind of data are explicit, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools or state a verb like 'get'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ashare_quote or ashare_kline. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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