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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and ordering but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The phrasing is more like a title than a description of 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?

The description is very brief, with only two sentences, and it front-loads the core purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than concise; it omits critical details about parameters and behavior. Efficiency without completeness results in a neutral score.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'days' means, how pagination works beyond the word 'Paginated', what the response contains, or any prerequisites. An agent would have to guess at most of the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains the 'event' parameter with allowed values ('buy', 'sell', or '' for both). The other four parameters (days, page, page_size, locale) are left unexplained, despite having defaults in the schema. This is insufficient for an agent to know their meaning.

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 states the tool returns disclosure-of-interest (增减持) records, newest first, which is a clear and specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_disclosure by its focus on增减持 events, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only mention is the event parameter, which is more about parameter selection than tool selection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.

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