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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that PRO or above is required and that lower tiers return HTTP 403, which is useful operational context. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether results are paginated, rate limits, or what happens if no required parameters are provided (since all are optional).

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 concise and well-structured with labeled Args and Returns sections. Each line serves a purpose: explaining the tool type, subscription requirement, parameter meanings, mutual exclusivity, and return fields. There is no filler or redundant repetition beyond what's needed.

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 covers the core purpose, auth requirements, parameters, and return format, which is reasonably complete for a data-list tool. However, it does not explain what happens when no parameters are provided (all are optional), nor does it mention pagination or other typical listing behaviors. Given the absence of annotations, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds extra value by explicitly noting that trade_date is mutually exclusive with start_date/end_date, which is not indicated in the schema. It also clarifies the limit_type values (U/D/Z). This goes beyond the baseline.

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 states the tool provides a limit-up/down list (涨跌停榜单) and identifies it as market data (行情数据). This is a specific resource, and the name 'limit_list' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'daily' or 'top_list' by its focus on limit-up/down events, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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 versus sibling tools such as 'daily', 'realtime', or 'top_list'. The only usage-related info is the PRO subscription requirement and the note that trade_date is mutually exclusive with start/end dates, which is parameter behavior rather than tool selection guidance.

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