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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (JSON array with listed OHLC fields) and the mutually exclusive date modes, adding useful behavior context. However, it omits whether symbol is required, how empty results are handled, pagination or limits, and doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only market data operation.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded: a one-line summary, an Args list, and a Returns list. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward OHLC endpoint, the description covers the parameter modes and return fields well. However, the input schema marks all parameters as optional while the description never clarifies that symbol is effectively required or what happens when no dates are supplied, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent building a valid request.

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%, so parameter names and formats are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the trade_date exclusivity with start/end dates and by giving a concrete symbol example with the suffix format, going beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 opens with '日线行情（OHLC）' clearly identifying daily OHLC market data and lists the returned fields, making the resource unambiguous. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as etf_daily or index_daily, so it doesn't fully stand apart.

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 useful in-parameter note that trade_date is mutually exclusive with start/end dates, which guides invocation. But there is no mention of when to use this tool versus its many siblings (etf_daily, index_daily, fx_daily), no alternative recommendations, and no exclusions or conditions for use.

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