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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the list returns only the latest N items with no pagination or history, that the body is cleaned Markdown suitable for direct LLM consumption, and that returned codes preserve instrument links like 茅台(sh600519). It also defines the supported instrument universe (A-shares, HK, US, indices, ETFs, sectors, convertibles).

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 core id/no-id distinction and every warning carries actionable information; nothing is padding. However the heavy bolding and ⚠️/⭐ symbols make it visually dense and slightly harder to scan than a plain two-part structure would be.

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 4-param tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: response shape per mode, pagination limits, body format and cleanliness, code-link conventions, timestamp format, and instrument coverage. The output schema can handle field-level return details.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains the id/no-id branching that governs the entire response shape and clarifies why the url from list mode is useless for retrieving a body. It does not add gifting beyond that, e.g. no detail on how type values other than 1 behave.

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 resource (个股财经资讯) and splits behavior by mode: no id = list (title+source+time), id = full article body. It explicitly names the sibling ashare_notice for historical announcements, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening schemas.

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 phrasing ('这股票最近有什么新闻/消息面/这条新闻讲了什么') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative (historical announcements → ashare_notice). It also warns that the list's url is a dynamic page that cannot be fetched, so the agent knows to switch to the id parameter instead.

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