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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral details: records are returned 'newest first' and include specific fields. However, it does not mention whether results are paginated, how the locale parameter affects output, or what happens when a stock has no records. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive behavioral coverage.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose in Chinese and English, then lists the distinguishing output attributes. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 read-only lookup tool, the description covers the main purpose and output fields, and with no output schema that field list is valuable. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it still lacks explanation of the locale parameter, stock_code format, and return container, so it is 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only implicitly identifies stock_code as the stock selector ('for one stock'); the locale parameter is never explained, and no format or example is given for stock_code. This is insufficient for two parameters with zero schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pattern ('DI records for one stock') and clearly distinguishes this tool from its likely sibling get_disclosure_interest by emphasizing 'per-stock' scope. It names the key output fields (holder, capacity, event type, shares, pct), leaving no doubt about what the tool returns.

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 phrase 'for one stock' provides clear context: this is the tool to use when you need disclosure-of-interest records for a single stock. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the per-stock scoping is enough to route an agent correctly among the sibling list.

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