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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '只读查询' (read-only) and '需 API Key' (requires API key), which are critical for an agent to know before invoking. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only usage query this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage triggers and key behavioral notes. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description covers purpose, the exact return fields, when to use it, read-only status, and authentication needs – everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter semantics to add. The description adds no param info, which 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 specific verb and resource: '查自己的 API 用量与剩余额度' (check own API usage and remaining quota). It also enumerates the exact data points returned (今日调用次数/剩余总量/到期时间/限流额度), making it easily distinguishable from market data siblings like ashare_quote or ashare_kline.

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 explicitly provides the user query patterns that should trigger this tool ('用户问"我的额度还剩多少/今天调了多少次"用这个'), which is strong when-to guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, though the sibling list makes that obvious.

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