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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), granularity ('per-day shares/amount'), and aggregation ('aggregate totals'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination limits, date range behavior, or whether the data is historical or real-time, leaving some behavioral 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key purpose ('回购明细 (per-stock buyback)'), followed by ordering and aggregation details. It is a single sentence with no wasted words, though the bilingual phrasing adds a slight redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and data shape. However, it lacks details on response structure, pagination, and the meaning of 'locale', which an agent might need to invoke it correctly in different contexts.

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 explains the resource (per-stock buyback) but does not explain the 'locale' parameter or the format/meaning of 'stock_code' beyond the schema's title. The description adds context about the output but not about the parameters themselves.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'share buyback records for one stock' with ordering and aggregation details. It distinguishes from siblings like get_buyback_ranking (which is ranking-focused) by emphasizing per-stock detail, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving per-stock buyback details, and the 'newest first' ordering gives a sense of the data shape. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_buyback_ranking or other buyback-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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