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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the upstream endpoint (SSE queryCompanyBulletinNew), that it is keyless (no auth setup needed), and that results come newest-first. It also notes the response always reports the true total on file, which matters for a limit-capped list.

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?

One dense block that front-loads what the tool returns and what it excludes, followed by example questions. Slight redundancy between the English gloss and the Chinese field list, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a row contains (title, type, date, PDF URL) and that a true total is returned alongside limited results. Combined with the source endpoint, keyless access note, and coverage boundary, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by naming the real-world bulletin categories (半年报/年报/董事会/股东会/回购/关联交易) that the type substring filter is meant to match, which the schema only illustrates with two examples. The dated example queries also show how since/limit combine in practice.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (SSE-listed company disclosure bulletins / 公告) with the lookup key (6-digit code) and enumerates the returned fields (title, type, date, PDF URL). It also explicitly scopes out SZSE codes, so an agent can tell immediately whether a company query belongs here rather than to a broader company-data tool.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ("600519最新公告", "annual report / 年报 filings for a code") and an explicit when-not condition: SZSE 0/3-prefixed codes are not covered. It stops short of naming a sibling tool for the SZSE case, so the agent knows this tool is wrong but not where to go instead.

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