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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: per-source authority weighting, per-source quota splitting rationale, 5-minute result caching, report has no snippet, announcement links are PDFs. However, it omits error/auth behavior and pagination, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose, sibling routing, and output shape are front-loaded and each warning marker flags a distinct caveat. It is nonetheless long, with a full enumeration of output row fields that partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

For a multi-source, deduplicating search tool this is complete: it explains sourcing, dedup, ranking order, authority tiers, relevance scoring, evidence-reproduction fields, and caching. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value the schema lacks – that scope=report research reports count against a separate quota and carry no snippet, and that limit is split evenly across sources up to 30 – but the core parameter meanings are already documented in the schema.

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: cross-source keyword retrieval of cninfo announcements plus eastmoney news, normalized into one deduplicated table. It goes further and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings ashare_news (by-code single target) and ashare_flash (market-wide stream), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 concrete user intents ('这公司最近发了什么公告/有什么新闻/这消息哪来的/能不能核实') that select this tool, and spells out the division of labor against two sibling tools. It also flags when to widen scope (scope=report) and notes the extra quota is free and not crowded out by news.

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