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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: all historical records are returned regardless of date, with is_fallback=true signalling an unfiltered result, plus an institutional-edition-only restriction. It stops short of covering failure modes or limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its return fields, then routing rules, then caveats — a sensible order. It is dense with bold markup and slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, yet it still names the key fields and their semantics. Combined with routing rules, the date caveat, code format, and the institutional restriction, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it states that date does NOT filter results (correcting the schema's '留空 = 最近' implication) and explains that dragon_rank empty means non-leader. That is genuine clarification the schema does not give.

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 gives a specific resource (single stock's historical limit-up records) and enumerates the returned fields (date, dragon_rank, plates, reason, concept). It explicitly contrasts itself with sibling ashare_limit_up: that tool covers today's whole-market pool, this one covers one stock's history — an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 names the exact user phrasings that should trigger it ('为什么涨停/上次涨停什么原因/它靠什么题材涨停') and states the when-to-use-other rule ('涨停池给今天全市场涨停股；本工具给单只票的历史'). It also warns that date is not a filter and that code must be an A-share, so misuse conditions are pre-empted.

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