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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: paid tool requiring a Key (体验版及以上), free/anonymous unavailable; history limited to ~1 year; non-trading-day or future dates auto-fall-back to the nearest trading day with the returned row's `date` authoritative. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 purpose and trigger questions, then bulleted ⚠️ caveats that each carry distinct information (batch routing, date rules, code formats, ETF scope, payment). Dense but every line earns its place; slightly repetitive on the ETF/面 code notes.

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, and the description still covers the remaining gaps: auth/cost, universe exclusions, date fallback, and code format. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: the date fallback behavior and the 'trust the returned date' rule, plus confirmation that both `sh600667` and bare `600667` forms work and ETF codes are valid. Marginal value above the schema, not below.

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?

Names the specific resource (筹码分布/持仓成本) and enumerates the returned metrics: 获利盘比例, 平均成本, 90%/70% 集中度, 收盘价, plus the exact user questions it answers. It also names the sibling ashare_chip_batch as the multi-stock alternative, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Explicit routing rule: multiple stocks → ashare_chip_batch (200 at a time, per-stock success flags); this tool queries one. It also states supported universe (沪深A股 + ETF) and excludes 港美股, and maps natural-language user questions to this tool.

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