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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It discloses only that multiple codes can be removed in one call (comma-separated); it says nothing about permissions, whether removal is idempotent, what happens when a code is absent from the list, or whether confirmation is required.

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?

A single short, front-loaded clause with the bolded action label first; nothing is padded. The batch note is slightly redundant with the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 destructive write with zero annotation coverage, the description is too thin: no side-effect or failure-mode context, no mention of which list is affected by default, and no confirmation of whether removal is immediate. The output schema offsets the need to explain return values only partially.

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 schema already documents both `code` (format + comma batching) and `list_name` (default 默认自选). The description only restates the comma-separated batching already in the schema and never mentions `list_name`, so it adds little beyond structured data – baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('delete from watchlist / 删自选股'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with ashare_watchlist_add or ashare_watchlist_list, but the naming makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. whether the item must already exist), and no note about choosing a non-default list via `list_name`. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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