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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains mode semantics and does not reveal behaviors such as data scope, freshness, whether symbol is required for detail mode, or any effects. This is a minimal amount of behavioral context for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and front-loads the resource, but it is under-specified rather than optimally concise. Every sentence earns its place, yet the terse style leaves important context about parameters and usage unstated.

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, return value details are not required, but the description still lacks essential context: what 'list' vs 'detail' returns, how limit and symbol interact with each mode, and when this tool is appropriate among 20+ siblings. The tool is simple, but the absence of param semantics and usage guidance makes it incomplete.

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 does clarify the meaning of the mode parameter (list vs detail), but says nothing about limit or symbol. With three parameters totally undocumented in the schema, describing only one is insufficient.

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 identifies a specific resource—broker research report summaries ('脱水研报（券商研报摘要）')—and the tool's purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like ashare_quote or ashare_finance. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the resource is concrete and meaningful.

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 states that mode=list provides a list and mode=detail provides details, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as ashare_events, ashare_finance, or ashare_sector. There are no alternatives named and no exclusions or contextual conditions described.

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