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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the per-use cost (¥0.05) and states that the output is a structured review, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as data source, formatting details, or failure behavior. This is acceptable for a simple generator but not rich disclosure.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, input/output, cost, and parameter example. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly: the exact input meaning, an example, the return mode, and the cost. The output schema handles return-value details, and no extra behavioral context is required.

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 provides only type string for q with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: '输入盘面描述' defines the parameter as a market description, and the q example ('沪指涨0.8% 半导体领涨 量能放大') demonstrates the expected form. No syntax edge cases are given, but the core semantics are clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it '生成' a structured A-share morning review from a market-description input. The domain and output format distinguish it from the sibling content-generation tools, so an agent can tell what it does without opening schema.

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 implies the intended usage: provide a market description (盘面描述) such as the q example and receive a structured review. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or lists exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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