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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it fixes the adjustment convention (前复权 for daily+, no adjustment for minute; no fq param, don't re-adjust), discloses refresh cadence (5-min free/anonymous vs real-time paid), tier requirements (minute lines need standard ¥29.9), unsupported markets (北交所/期货/外汇), the 5-symbol anonymous cap, and that it's read-only reflecting close. This is far beyond typical behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each warning is substantive, but the definition is dense with stacked ⚠️ blocks and repeated tier/adjustment caveats that risk overload. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though some redundancy across the batch/full reiteration could be tightened.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: adjustment rules, tier and market limits, refresh behavior, multi-symbol caveats, and sibling routing. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description adds non-obvious semantics the schema omits: minute lines require both start+end with a ~1-month window, the adjustment is fixed with no fq parameter, and turnover is the % field name shared with quote/snapshot. The code-accepts-commas-but-mixes-results caveat is also added. A small gap keeps it from 5.

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 (K线) with the exact periods supported (day/week/month/season/year + minute lines) and explicitly distinguishes itself from ashare_quote (current price), ashare_minute (intraday tick), and the batch/full siblings. An agent can route to the correct tool from the first sentence alone.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('走势/最近表现/历史K线/趋势'), when-not-to-use conditions, and names each alternative plus the condition that selects it (current price → ashare_quote, intraday → ashare_minute, minute OHLC candles → this tool's period=m1/m5, multi-symbol → ashare_quote_batch, raw/hfq → kline_batch/kline_full). The distinction between 分时 and 分钟K线 is called out directly.

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