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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that it is read-only (只读查询), that an empty `date` means realtime while a value fetches that trading day, and that a non-trading day returns empty. It omits any auth/rate-limit context and result-size behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and usage triggers, then mode semantics, then caveats. Every clause carries information, though the dense field enumeration for the ladder mode and repeated ⚠️ markers make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 2-param read tool with an output schema, the description still covers mode semantics, date realtime-vs-history behavior, the empty-result edge case, read-only status, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed 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 already 100%, but the description goes well beyond it: `mode=board` is explained as 板块主线 returning 题材板块 + limit_count + amount + stocks, and `mode=ladder` is explained as 连板梯队 grouped by streak height with board_name/market_cap/tips/max_streak/limit_days/is_repack. It also defines the `date` edge case (must be a real trading day, else empty).

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 in the market-review domain (短线复盘/涨停结构) and immediately scopes it to 题材、梯队结构. It explicitly names the sibling it is NOT (ashare_limit_up) for 涨停原因/封单/主力资金, so an agent can separate it from ~40 siblings 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 concrete user-phrasing triggers ('今天什么题材最强 / 板块主线 / 连板梯队 / 几板几只 / 谁是反包') and an explicit exclusion routing to ashare_limit_up. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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