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 read-only semantics ('只读查询') and the update cadence ('按研报发布更新'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It doesn't cover auth/error behavior, but for a read-only query tool the disclosed safety profile and refresh cadence are solid.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by routing, mode semantics, and safety. Every sentence earns its place, though the heavy formatting (bold, emojis, slashes) makes it slightly dense to parse.

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?

Complete for a read-only query tool with an output schema present: purpose, when-to-use, alternative, mode behavior, and read-only nature are all covered. The only gap is the limit default inconsistency, which originates in the schema rather than the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining mode's two values and the constraint that detail requires a symbol ('mode=list 列表 / mode=detail 详情（detail 需给 symbol）'). Note a schema-internal inconsistency: limit has default 20 but its own description says '默认 10' – confusing but a schema issue, not a description issue.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('脱水研报' – broker research report summaries) and ties it to concrete user intents ('研报/机构观点/券商怎么说'). Explicitly differentiates from the sibling ashare_events, which handles stock news/announcements, so an agent can select the correct tool without opening either 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('用户问...用这个') and names the exact alternative with its selection condition ('要个股新闻/公告请用 ashare_events'). This is textbook routing that leaves nothing to inference.

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