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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, discloses the Hong Kong quirk where `disclosureDate` is often empty and the date lives in `disclosureDesc`, and notes the subscription tier gate (¥29.9+). It stops short of describing error behavior or pagination, so not a 5.

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 the resource and return fields, then usage, then caveats. Dense but every sentence carries signal; the bold/emoji formatting is heavy but functional. Slightly busy for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers markets, the HK caveat, tier gating, and sibling differentiation. Only minor gaps (e.g., behavior for invalid or ambiguous codes) remain.

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 100% and the single `codes` param is fully documented in the schema (comma-separated sh/hk/us prefixes). The description adds no format or batching guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it returns the scheduled earnings disclosure date (`disclosureDate`), the report period (`reportEndDate`), and explanatory text. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from `ashare_calendar`, which covers dividends/unlocks/meetings, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Names the exact user phrasings that should trigger it ('什么时候出财报/几号披露/三季报什么时候发') and gives an explicit exclusion ('与 ashare_calendar 不是一回事'). It also states the three supported markets (A股/港股/美股), leaving little to infer.

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