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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: search terms must be Chinese, the tool returns company, stock code, title, date, PDF link, and true total match count, and the board filter is restricted to verified segments. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose and coverage, then gives usage constraints, examples, and return values. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly long and could be tightened without losing value.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (company, stock code, title, date, PDF link, total match count) and the critical input constraint (Chinese terms). It also explains the board filter and date semantics. Minor gaps remain, such as pagination behavior or what happens with zero results, but the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why Chinese terms are required, giving concrete example terms, and clarifying that the board filter is 'verified' and that `until` only applies when `since` is set. This is above the baseline 3 because it enriches the query semantics and filter behavior.

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 ('full-text search') and resource (CNINFO, the official disclosure feed for SZSE and SSE, including STAR Market), and explicitly distinguishes itself from SEC- or HKEX-based tools. It names concrete use cases and example queries, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for China A-share disclosures invisible to SEC/HKEX tools, and it explicitly warns not to translate English queries into Chinese. It also names the optional board filter and explains when to omit it, providing clear context for selecting this tool over siblings like hkex_ipo_filings or hkex_licensing_deals.

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