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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose the two most important traits: read-only (只读查询) and update cadence tied to the issuance calendar (按发行日历更新). It says nothing about how far ahead the calendar extends, latency, or data-source caveats, and an output schema handles return values.

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?

Four dense fragments: what it is, when to invoke, safety/refresh behavior, and scope. No sentence is padding, and the market-coverage warning is deliberately placed last for emphasis.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with a full output schema, an agent has what it needs: purpose, invocation trigger, read-only safety, and market scope. The only gap is that the description does not mention the 'days' lookahead window, leaving the temporal horizon of results unstated outside the schema.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'days', and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it, including its 15-day default. The description never mentions the lookahead window, which would have been a useful addition, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. 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 the specific resource (新股日历) and enumerates the lifecycle phases it covers (发行/申购/中签/上市), plus an explicit three-market scope note (A股/港股/美股). The 'ashare_' prefix could mislead an agent into thinking it is A-share-only, but the description proactively corrects that. It is clear without needing sibling differentiation, since no sibling covers IPOs.

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?

"用户问'新股/打新/IPO'用这个" gives explicit routing by user intent, which is the primary selection signal in this tool set. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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