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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It explicitly discloses the failure mode (ok:false for unknown/no data) and explains a nuanced field (summary.reallocation) that might otherwise be misinterpreted. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool these are less critical.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Lightweight stock summary...') and kept reasonably short. The field note, while a bit long, contains essential caveats that earn their place. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape to be self-sufficient. It only mentions 'key stats', 'tier classification', and the single summary.reallocation field, leaving the rest of the response unspecified. An agent can call the tool with just a stock code, but cannot anticipate the full result structure, making it incomplete.

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?

The schema has one parameter, stock_code, with only a type and title (0% description coverage). The description mentions 'stock code' in the error context but does not explain expected format, examples, or origin. With no schema help, the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics, so agents must guess.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a 'lightweight stock summary' with 'key stats and tier classification', which is a specific resource and purpose. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_stock_overview, but the 'tier classification' feature helps distinguish it. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify what it does.

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?

Provides a targeted alternative for one field: 'For the raw clawback/重新分配 flag from the allotment PDF, use get_allotment_result instead'. It also notes the ok:false behavior for unknown codes. However, it lacks general guidance on when to choose this tool over other stock data tools, so usage context is only partially covered.

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