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

无注解提供，描述本身未披露任何行为特征（如是否只读、是否返回历史序列、是否受频率限制、输出格式等）。对调用后果完全无说明。

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?

单句极简，无冗余，但信息量严重不足。简洁本身是优点，但为了简洁牺牲了关键语义，导致实用性差，不达'每个句子都有价值'的标准。

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?

有输出schema但描述未提及，且对于2个参数（names、region）几乎无说明。作为宏观数据工具，应说明数据粒度、时间范围、命名规范等。当前描述完全不足以让agent正确调用。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述仅提及region参数的可选值（cn/us/jp/eu/hk），但未解释names参数的含义或用法。描述未补偿schema的缺失，agent无法理解names的用途。

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?

描述列出具体宏观数据指标（GDP/CPI/PMI/LPR/国债收益率）并给出region可选项，明确了资源范围，但缺少动词（如'查询'/'获取'），且与同类工具（如ashare_bond）的区分不明显。虽非纯tautology，但目的表述偏泛。

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?

完全没有说明何时使用此工具、何时使用其他sibling（如ashare_market_overview、ashare_quote），也没有任何排除条件。仅列出region取值，对选择依据无帮助。

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