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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PRO requirement, the specific 403 error on low-tier access, and the return format. This is strong for a read-only data retrieval tool, though it doesn't cover rate limits or data coverage nuances.

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 Args and Returns sections, and front-loads the purpose. It is longer than minimal due to the detailed return field list, but every part serves a purpose. No wasted words.

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, the description covers the resource, permissions, error behavior, parameters, and output fields. The output schema exists, so the manual return list is extra but helpful. Minor gaps like maximum date range or pagination are acceptable here.

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%, but the description adds crucial semantics: it re-emphasizes the symbol pattern with an example and explicitly states the mutual exclusion between trade_date and start_date/end_date, which the schema does not convey. This goes well 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 '个股资金流向' (individual stock money flow), which identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like moneyflow_hsgt. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', relying on the tool name to imply the action.

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?

It provides important context: PRO subscription required and low-tier returns 403, plus the mutually exclusive trade_date vs date range parameters. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., moneyflow_hsgt) or provide exclusions.

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