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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '读取' implies a read-only operation and the content of the table is described, but there is nothing about permissions, whether all rows are returned, pagination, or result ordering. For an unannotated tool this leaves significant disclosure gaps.

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 that wastes no words and puts the resource first. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list of status values duplicates the schema's enum-free documentation.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what data is returned, which is the key missing piece. However, it offers no return-format or filtering behavior guidance, leaving it only minimally complete.

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%, and both filters (status, industry) are already fully documented in the schema with example values. The description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (中报信号验证追踪表) and enumerates the three dimensions of data it holds: signal-board predictions, actual disclosed results, and verification status. An agent understands the content, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling read_signal_board, which the description even references ('信号板预测的公司').

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_signal_board or get_track_record, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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