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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses read-only behavior, pagination via limit/offset, mixed A-share and Hong Kong indices, and the Professional plan requirement. It could still say more about date filtering or failure/limit behavior, but the core behavioral context is present.

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 entry is compact and front-loaded: it gives the resource, use case, next step, pagination warning, market-mixing caveat, read-only status, and plan requirement without wasted text.

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 the output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, when to call it, next sibling, pagination, mixed markets, read-only status, and access tier.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats limit and offset pagination but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and does not elaborate on the date parameter.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a full index list of 1223 entries with code/name fields. It distinguishes this from the sibling `ashare_index_constituent` by directing the agent there after obtaining an index code.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when the user asks what indices exist or what an index code is, and names the follow-up tool for constituents. The pagination and mixed-market warnings further clarify operational use.

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