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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and that data updates according to the issuance calendar, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not discuss potential limitations or result behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool returns, gives usage triggers, and notes read-only/update behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool covers, when to use it, and that it is a safe read operation updated by the issuance calendar.

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%, and the parameter description already explains the 'days' parameter with a default of 15. The tool description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource—a new-stock calendar covering issuance/subscription/lottery/listing—and states explicit trigger keywords ('新股/打新/IPO'). This clearly differentiates 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?

It gives an explicit condition: use when the user asks about new stock/IPO topics. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full usage exclusion guidance.

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