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: it discloses that the first 4 rows have code/name masked while amounts remain complete, that masked=true rows are not tradable, that results are pre-sorted so row one is the day's largest, and that only the latest trading day is available. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not learn from 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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded in bold, followed by field semantics, then caveats. The field enumeration earns its place because it disambiguates `chase_amount` (yuan) and `masked`, and no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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, yet the description still covers masking, sorting, the no-history constraint, and the institutional-only gate — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is no pointer to a fallback tool when the institutional gate blocks the call.

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 both `sort` and `limit` are already documented including the default and the 500 cap. The description adds only that output is reordered by `sort` and that the first row is therefore the largest — useful but marginal, and `limit` is not mentioned at all.

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: stocks being chased by closing-session capital, ~292 rows, with an enumerated row schema. It does not name a sibling (e.g. ashare_fund_flow or ashare_bigorder) that an agent might confuse it with, so differentiation must be inferred from the '尾盘' framing.

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 explicit trigger phrasing — user asks 'who is being chased at the close / where closing capital flowed' — which is close to a when-to-use rule. It also states hard boundaries (latest trading day only, no historical lookup; institutional edition only), but names no alternative tool for the excluded cases.

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