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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a paid-tier requirement (Standard ¥29.9+ requires a Key), which is valuable, but omits whether calls are read-only, how results are returned, and what the 25-item list actually contains. The monetization note is the only real behavioral disclosure.

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 and information-dense, but three separate ⚠️ warnings plus redundant restatement of the parameter behavior (already in schema) create clutter. The pricing warning is buried mid-string rather than front-loaded with the other gating 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a paid tool with no annotations, the description should state whether access failures manifest as errors and confirm the read-only nature; the fee gate is disclosed but its operational consequence is not.

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% – both id and category are fully documented in the schema, including 'omitted = all' semantics. The description repeats the single-entry-by-category-or-id capability without adding syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (量化方法论库, 25 条判断市场的流程) and explicitly names the sibling it is not (看可回测的策略用 ashare_strategies). An agent can distinguish it from ashare_strategies 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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger phrases ('怎么判断/交易方法/方法论/判断流程') and an explicit alternative for the adjacent use case (backtestable strategies → ashare_strategies). Nothing is left to inference.

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