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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior and that data updates on daily close, which is useful. It does not mention any limitations such as historical depth or specific calculation details, but the read-only nature is clearly stated. Since the tool is simpler, this is acceptable.

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 compact and structured: it opens with the main purpose, then provides usage triggers, an explicit exclusion with sibling, and a note on read-only and update frequency. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 that there is an output schema, the return format is already defined. The description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, when not to use, and behavioral notes. It lacks detail on which indicators are included, but the indicator list is already in the description. The tool is simple enough.

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 code parameter is clearly described as 'sh600667'. The description adds no new detail about the parameter beyond confirming it is needed to identify the stock. It doesn't add syntax or format details but the schema already suffices.

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 clearly states the tool returns technical indicators (MA/MACD/KDJ/RSI/BOLL) and directly addresses the sibling ashare_kline, which returns raw K-line data. The verb '技术指标' is specific and the resource is the code parameter. It distinguishes itself from the kline sibling by explicitly noting the difference in computed values.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool—when the user asks for technical indicators, golden cross, death cross, overbought/oversold—and when not to use it, when raw K-line is needed, directing to ashare_kline. It also notes that it is a read-only query and updated by daily close, providing clear context.

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