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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the empty-date weekend fallback, the need to pass statutory holidays explicitly, the meaning of is_fallback=true, and that the tool is restricted to the institutional edition. These are exactly the non-obvious operational behaviors an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and keeps warnings in a compact, scannable form. However, the row-field enumeration is somewhat redundant because an output schema already exists, and the dense bold/emoji formatting is less clean than plain prose.

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 no annotations and an existing output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: fallback logic, holiday handling, institutional restriction, sibling relationship, and intended user questions. Nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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. The description adds useful date semantics beyond the schema by explaining weekend fallback and statutory-holiday handling, though it does not further explain the limit parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Starts with a precise definition: broken-board history for a given day's limit-up stocks whose limit was opened. It explicitly distinguishes the resource from ashare_limit_up by stating that limit-up is sealed while this tool is unsealed. The row fields further confirm exactly what the tool returns.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('今天有哪些票炸板/封板质量怎么样/哪些涨停被砸开') and names the complementary sibling ashare_limit_up with the comparison rationale. An agent knows both when to use this tool and how it relates to the alternative.

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