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

Annotations are present, so the bar is lower, and the description does add one behavioral fact beyond them: results come with verifiable internal source links. However it says nothing about ordering, pagination, partial-query behavior, or coverage limits, and it does not clarify the oddly permissive annotation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false) for what is clearly a search/read operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the sources and the return benefit immediately. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter, dual-market search, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with date filters, a market enum, a form-type filter, and only 33% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the missing usage guidance and parameter semantics leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 33% – only query and form_type carry schema descriptions, while limit, market, and both date bounds are undocumented. The description mentions US and Chinese sources, hinting at the market enum, but gives no semantics for date_from/date_to, limit caps, or form_type filtering, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (检索/search) plus two concrete resources (US SEC filings and Chinese company announcements) and the return type (verifiable internal source links). This separates it from search_meetings and search_visuals, but it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, search_research.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_research, get_evidence, or the other siblings, and no stated conditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the domain nouns.

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