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

无注释，描述承担行为披露责任。描述声明'只读查询'和'按披露节奏更新'，提供了安全性和更新频率信息。但未说明返回值格式或错误处理，由于输出模式存在，描述不需要解释返回格式，因此4分合理。

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?

描述简洁，包含关键信息，有明确警告和替代工具。虽然有多余细节，但结构良好，核心用途在前。整体高效，给4分。

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?

工具只有一个参数，模式覆盖率100%，输出模式存在，描述提供了范围（单只股票）、事件类型示例、使用场景、替代工具和更新频率。无重大缺失，完整性高。

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?

模式覆盖率为100%，参数code已在模式中描述为'股票代码：sh600667'，描述未添加额外参数信息。按校准规则，高覆盖率下基线为3分，描述未增加价值。

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?

描述明确说明工具做什么：提供单只股票的事件标签，列举了42类事件（大宗/龙虎榜/回购/分红/解禁等），并与兄弟工具（ashare_lhb、ashare_dividend）区分，明确这是单只股票的事件总览，而非全市场名单。动词和资源清晰，区分度高。

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?

描述明确给出了使用场景：当用户问某只股票近期大事/解禁/回购/定增时使用，并明确指出当需要查看全市场某一类事件名单时应该使用ashare_lhb或ashare_dividend。提供了明确的何时使用和替代工具，指南完整。

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