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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: it is a read-only query ('只读查询') and it requires a 标准版 (¥29.9) or higher subscription — a real entitlement gate an agent must anticipate. It stops short of describing result shape or refresh cadence, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Purpose and markets are front-loaded, then the usage trigger, then the two ⚠️ caveats, then the entitlement note — a sensible ordering. The emoji-and-bold formatting is denser than necessary, but every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, cross-check workflow, parameter format, read-only status, and subscription gating. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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% and the single `market` param already documents Chinese names or hs/hk/us plus the 沪深 default; the description's note on the same value formats largely restates the schema. With this little room to add meaning, baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names a specific resource (停复牌清单 / suspension-resumption list) across three scopes (沪深/港股/美股) and enumerates the three things it answers: who is halted, who resumes, and the reason. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ashare_screen or ashare_limit_up.

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?

States the triggering user question ('今天哪些票停牌/复牌') and adds an explicit when-to-use caveat: factor/strategy screening does NOT exclude suspended names, so candidates must be cross-checked against this list. That is a genuine routing rule plus a workflow constraint, not just restated purpose.

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