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: it discloses the paywall (付费工具, needs Key, requires standard ¥29.9+ tier, trial unusable) and real-time semantics (每次取此刻最新). These are gating facts an agent cannot get from the schema.

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-loads the core definition, then layers scope, sibling disambiguation, parameter constraint, and paywall in short warning-marked clauses. Dense but every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers identity, scope, alternatives, parameter limits, cost, and latency. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema lacks: days only accepts 1 or 5 with no 2/3/4 (no enums are declared in the schema). It also confirms code accepts indices/sectors/ETF/HK/US/bonds.

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 a specific verb+resource: intraday 分时 (per-minute price plus cumulative volume), and explicitly contrasts itself with ashare_kline's minute candles. An agent can distinguish it from the ~40 siblings, especially ashare_kline/ashare_kline_full, without opening a 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('今天分时/盘中走势/日内走势/近 5 日分时') and names the alternative for the adjacent use case ('要蜡烛图用 ashare_kline 的 period=m1/m5/...'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated.

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