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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that SSE is the default exchange and specifies the return fields (exchange, cal_date, is_open, pretrade_date), adding some context. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as valid date ranges, error handling, or whether start/end are required together.

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 and structured, listing parameters and return fields. However, the Args section duplicates schema information, which is unnecessary but not overly verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of a calendar lookup, the description is mostly complete, but it lacks usage context and deeper behavioral notes. The default exchange note is helpful, yet the tool would benefit from clarifying parameter dependencies.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section merely repeats the schema's descriptions without adding new meaning, constraints, or examples.

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 identifies the tool as a trading calendar data source ('交易日历') with default SSE exchange and basic info, which clearly indicates it provides trading calendar data. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'query', but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not reference any sibling tools or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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