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 discloses per-item ok/error semantics, that missing industry/listedDate for indices/ETFs is not a failure, A-share-only scope, tier-based caps, that billing is per returned item, and that it is a paid tool unavailable on the standard tier. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending a call.

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?

Content is front-loaded and organized by ⚠️ markers, with the distinguishing comparison placed early. It is long and repeats the 100/150 limit and paid-tier note that also appear in the schema, so a little trimming is possible, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not re-explain returns, yet it still clarifies the per-item success/failure shape and partial-failure behavior, which the output schema alone would not make as obvious. Combined with scope, limits, cost, and fallback guidance, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 already met by the schema's comma-separated format and tier caps. The description adds value by stating that bare 6-digit codes are also accepted and by repeating the cap in context of the call, though it does not add syntax detail beyond that.

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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource (batch company profile) and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (listing date, main business, industry, website, registered capital, chairman, address, contact). It also explicitly contrasts against the sibling ashare_profile, so an agent can select it 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?

It names the exact user intents that should select this tool ('这几只都是做什么的/按行业归类/逐个看基本面/什么时候上市') and states the alternative (ashare_profile) with the condition that separates them: one vs. many. It further says what to do when non-A-share codes appear (mark ok:false, fall back to single queries) rather than silently failing.

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