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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the subscription requirement and error behavior (403 for low-tier), and also specifies the return format as a JSON array with named fields. This is meaningful transparency for a data-fetching 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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then listing parameters and return fields in a clear format. No filler words. It is slightly verbose with the args list but earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: all parameters, return fields, and the PRO access requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description repeats the same parameter descriptions and examples (e.g., period format), adding little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as providing financial audit opinions (财务审计意见) for financial data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like balance_sheet or income. The resource is clear, though the verb is implicit (implied 'get' or 'retrieve') rather than explicit.

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 provides a key prerequisite: requires PRO or higher package, with low-tier calls returning 403. This helps set expected usage context but does not give explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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