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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it specifies 'real-time', lists all returned fields (name, price, change, etc.), mentions the source (Sina, keyless), and clarifies that multiple codes can be queried at once. No contradictions with 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 compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return fields, usage syntax, an example, and the source. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the description explicitly lists all return fields (name, current price, change%, etc.). Combined with the clear parameter usage and source info, this is a complete description for a simple read-only tool.

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 input schema already describes the 'symbols' parameter. The description enriches it by explaining the code format (6-digit, prefixes optional), providing an example, and noting that lists are comma-separated. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states 'Real-time quote(s) for Chinese A-share stocks' and specifies the exact stock codes accepted (e.g., Shanghai 6xxxxx). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyst consensus or earnings forecasts by focusing on current price and volume data.

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 provides strong context for when to use this tool (for real-time quotes) but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for historical data or technical analysis). However, the sibling tool names (e.g., ashares_analyst_consensus) implicitly guide the agent to alternatives.

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