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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via '读取' and describes the data returned (hit rate, verification stats, per-signal range), but omits permissions, side effects, rate limits, and pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about being the only time-accumulated asset is somewhat editorial but earns its place by underscoring the data's provenance and value.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully outlines the return content (hit rate, validation stats, per-signal results). The input schema fully covers parameters, but the absence of usage guidance leaves a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (industry filter, include_signals default). The description adds no additional parameter meaning or examples, matching the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (读取) and resource (信号验证记录) and enumerates what it returns: hit rate, verified/pending stats, per-signal results. It clearly distinguishes itself as a historical performance record, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_signal_board or read_earnings_tracker.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The sentence '这是唯一用时间积累的资产' is a value proposition rather than usage direction, leaving an agent to infer when this tool is preferable to its siblings.

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