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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool is paid while ashare_quote is free, that billing is per call, that non-A-share inputs return empty rather than wrong data, and that units are standardized. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is long but dense and clearly structured with bolded headings and line breaks. Each section contributes distinct value: field inventory, user intents, sibling routing, cost model, market restriction, and units. Nothing feels redundant or decorative.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data is included, when to use it, when not to, what it costs, what happens for unsupported markets, and unit conventions. The output schema handles return-value detail, so no critical context 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter `code` is already documented as an A-share code with format examples. The description reinforces the A-share restriction and empty-return behavior, but adds no new parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('全字段行情画像') and enumerates exactly what it returns: price, order book, valuation, market cap, shares, limit-up/down prices, identifiers, and internal/external offer. It also names the sibling tool ashare_quote and explains the core difference, so an agent can select this tool without opening other 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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('用户问...用这个'), direct comparison with ashare_quote ('只要现价/涨跌用 ashare_quote 更轻'), and a market exclusion ('仅 A 股...用 ashare_quote'). It also covers billing trade-offs, telling the agent when calling this tool once is cheaper than multiple quote/valuation/orderbook calls.

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