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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the PRO requirement and 403 error behavior, and notes the JSON array return format. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or what happens when no data matches the query.

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 a title line, access requirement, argument list, and return description. It is slightly repetitive of the schema, but the information is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it efficient to parse.

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 5-parameter data retrieval tool with optional parameters and an output description, the description adequately covers purpose, access requirements, parameter formats, and return fields. It does not elaborate on edge cases or the interplay between dates, but overall it provides enough context for a typical query scenario.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates each parameter with the same descriptions as the schema, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It clarifies the distinction between end_date and enddate, but that is also present in the schema.

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 tool as returning 股东户数 (shareholder count) market data, with a specific resource and context. It mentions the data type and return fields, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as holder_trade or share_size, though the '行情数据' qualifier helps set it 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 includes a usage constraint by noting the PRO subscription requirement and the 403 error for lower tiers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no direct guidance is given.

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