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 well: it declares read-only behavior, the subscription tier required (Pro ¥99+), that the earliest queryable date is late 2026-04, and that chg_quarter is cumulative-quarter and usually equals value rather than 0. It also warns the response is pre-structured so no string parsing is needed.

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 capability and usage trigger, followed by concise caveats; nearly every clause carries information (output shape, quarter-reset semantics, date bound, market scope, tier). Emoji and hedging add some visual noise but no sentences are redundant.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the key structural fact (value plus chg_week/chg_month/chg_quarter). Combined with read-only disclosure, tier requirement, and date-scope limits, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds real value by clarifying that codes accepts multiple comma-separated values, that date left blank means latest, and that historical dates are bounded by an earliest date. The schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format, so this is an increment rather than a full specification.

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 and scope: an A-share scoring tool returning five named dimensions (fundamental/technical/composite/fund-flow/risk) each on a 0-100 scale with week/month/quarter deltas. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ashare_technical or ashare_factors, which return raw data rather than composite scores.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how many points / fundamental score / technical score'), which tells the agent exactly when to select it. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. use ashare_technical for raw indicators instead of a score), so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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