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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the T+1 delay, the PRO-tier requirement with 403 behavior, and the return format (JSON array with specific fields). This is substantial but could mention pagination or error handling for missing data.

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: purpose, constraints, args, and returns. It front-loads the core purpose in the first line and uses a clean format. Every sentence earns its place.

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 core context: T+1 lag, subscription requirement, mutual exclusivity of date parameters, and return fields. It also benefits from the presence of an output schema. It could be more explicit about what happens when neither trade_date nor start/end is provided, but overall it is complete for a data retrieval tool.

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 repeats schema descriptions for symbol, start_date, end_date, and trade_date, and explicitly notes the trade_date vs. start/end mutual exclusivity, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 southbound (Stock Connect) shareholding details with fund flow, which distinguishes it from northbound_holdings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the noun phrase '持股明细' to imply retrieval.

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 important operational context (T+1 data lag, PRO subscription requirement, 403 for lower tiers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as northbound_holdings or moneyflow_hsgt. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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