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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output contents (grouped by headline category, with publish date and file URL), which is useful. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., date range, pagination, or whether all historical announcements are included) or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-free retrieve tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the core purpose and key output attributes immediately, making it easy to parse.

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 and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and output shape (grouped announcements with date and URL). However, it omits details like the exact return structure (e.g., how categories are organized), any filtering options, or prerequisites. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 compensate. It clarifies that stock_code identifies the stock ('for one stock'), but it does not explain the locale parameter or its default (zh-CN). The description adds only partial meaning, leaving locale behavior ambiguous.

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 clearly states the verb (get) and resource (HKEXnews announcements for one stock), including details about grouping, publish date, and file URL. It is specific enough to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_stock_buyback or get_stock_ccass, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description only mentions 'for one stock,' implying it requires a stock code, but there is no note about when to prefer it over similar tools like get_stock_disclosure or get_corporate_actions.

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