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 that detail responses come in two shapes (body `text` in ~9/10 cases, empty `text` + PDF `url` for long reports), gives the decision rule (check `text` first, fall back to `url`), and states the caller must fetch and parse PDFs itself. It also warns that coverage depth differs for HK/US tickers (`hk00700`, `usAAPL`) and that list mode reaches back ~20 years.

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 mode split, then the caller-relevant warnings, which is the right ordering. It is somewhat dense with ⚠️/💡 markers and restates the text-then-url rule twice, but every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the one thing the schema cannot: which response shape to expect and how to recover content from the PDF case. Combined with the sibling routing hint and market-coverage caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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; the description goes further by tying `code` to list mode as a hard requirement and explaining that `type`/`limit`/`offset` drive paging with a ~20-year回溯 window that varies by market. It does not expand on the `type` 0-7 enum values, which remain opaque in both schema and description.

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 (上市公司公告) and two distinct modes (list vs. detail) triggered by the presence of `id`, which is a precise operational split an agent can act on. It also names sibling `ashare_finance` and steers financial-number queries away from this tool, so it is distinguishable without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use: user asking '公告/披露/半年度报告/年报在哪' should call this; explicit when-not-to-use: financial figures belong to `ashare_finance`. It also gives the routing rule between the two modes (no id ⇒ list, id ⇒ detail) rather than leaving it to inference.

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