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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is a real-time-only feed, rejects historical dates, and degrades to an explicit status on pre-market/non-trading days. It also mandates an output link format, though it does not describe pagination or rate behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage conditions and output link rules. It is information-dense with little waste, though the markdown-link formatting instruction is somewhat tangential to tool selection and lengthens the block.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it correctly avoids doing so. It covers the critical date constraint and the real-time-only limitation, and adds output link-formatting guidance. Only minor gaps remain around result volume or pagination, which the maxRowsPerLevel schema already partly addresses.

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 all six parameters (date, format, detailLevel, maxRowsPerLevel, includeFirstBoard, includeReasonInfo) are already documented in the schema. The description's 【链接】 note concerns output rendering rather than parameter meaning, so it adds little param-level value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: real-time monitoring of stocks whose gain is nearing the limit-up price but has not yet sealed the board, framed as intraday capture of potential limit-up opportunities. This is a distinct concept from siblings like limit_up_ladder or broken_limit_up, and an agent can reasonably tell it apart. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g. broken_limit_up for stocks that failed to seal).

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 '何时使用' clause gives clear context: only for same-day intraday sprint-to-limit monitoring, historical dates unsupported, and pre-market/non-trading days return an explicit status rather than an empty error. It also names a companion tool (minute_data). It lacks explicit alternatives for adjacent queries (e.g. when to use limit_up_ladder or broken_limit_up instead), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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