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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: PRO plan mandatory (403 otherwise), return format as JSON array, specific fields, and the mutual exclusivity of trade_date with start/end. This goes beyond a simple 'get' declaration.

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, front-loaded with purpose and access requirements, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary prose.

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 data retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers access constraints, all parameters, and return fields. It is sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly, though it omits potential details like pagination or date-range behavior.

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 100% and the description repeats the same parameter descriptions (e.g., '证券代码（带后缀）'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 resource as block trade market data (大宗交易行情数据). It distinguishes from siblings by naming a unique data category, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions a PRO plan requirement and the trade_date mutual exclustivity constraint, but these are prerequisites, not usage context.

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