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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the data category and trigger phrases; it does not disclose read-only behavior, output format, number of periods, or any limitations. This leaves an agent without insight into what actually happens when the tool is invoked.

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 extremely tight: the first sentence states the resource, and the second sentence gives concrete user-query triggers. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details may be covered there, and the purpose plus trigger usage are present. However, with no parameter semantics and no behavioral context, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent choosing and invoking the tool 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of 'code' or 'num'. The agent is left to guess what format the stock code should take and what the defaulted 'num' means, which is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 clearly identifies the resource: financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow statement). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the scope is unmistakable and the mention of specific report types helps distinguish it from the many sibling ashare_* tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when users ask about revenue, net profit, liabilities, or financials. This is clear context for triggering, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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