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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The verb '查' (check) implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a behavioral trait. However, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations, though these are likely implicit for a usage query.

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 a single, short sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells exactly what the tool does, and there is nothing missing that an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No prerequisites or return details are lacking given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or detract from that, so a 4 is appropriate.

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's function: checking one's own API usage and remaining quota. It uses a specific verb (查) and a specific resource (API usage), and it is instantly distinguishable from all sibling tools like ashare_bond or ashare_kline, which deal with financial data. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, but the intent is implied: it is the only tool among 22 siblings that deals with API usage rather than market data. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context makes it clear this is the dedicated usage-check tool.

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