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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the PRO requirement and that low tiers receive 403, and specifies the output is a JSON array with a list of fields. However, it does not describe data source, refresh frequency, or parameter dependency behavior.

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 well-structured with distinct sections for requirement, arguments, and returns. However, the Args section duplicates the schema descriptions, adding redundancy. The returns field list is informative but lengthy, making it slightly less concise.

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?

The description includes the output fields and the PRO requirement, adding context beyond schema. However, it does not clarify parameter combinations, whether symbol is required, or data granularity (quarterly vs annual). The output schema exists but isn't shown; the description's field list helps moderately.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description's Args section repeats the schema information almost verbatim (e.g., period description identical), adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as '资产负债表' (balance sheet) and lists the return fields, making the resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like income and cash_flow by its specific financial statement focus, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query'.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, only mentions the PRO plan requirement. The tool name and return fields imply use for balance sheet data, but no explicit when/when-not criteria or alternative comparisons are provided.

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