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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses that historical counts are returned for the full period (since 2020/2016), but detailed line items are only provided for the last ~30 trading days, and that earlier data requires visiting the webpage. It also states an attribution requirement, adding behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise yet information-dense, with every sentence contributing a distinct piece of guidance: purpose, data scope, fallback, input format, alternative tool, and attribution. It front-loads the core function and uses clear punctuation to structure related details.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains the return structure (counts vs. details), temporal limits, and the alternative for earlier data. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including citation requirements.

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 already describes the 'code' parameter as '6位股票代码(如002384)或名称(如 东山精密)' with 100% coverage. The description repeats '支持6位代码或中文名称' without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not improve upon the schema baseline of 3.

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 the tool's function: '查询个股涨停史与龙虎榜史' (query individual stock limit-up history and dragon-tiger list history), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the alternative get_daily_review for market reviews.

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 explicit usage guidance: '查某日大盘复盘请改用 get_daily_review' indicates when not to use this tool and what to use instead. It also specifies supported input formats (6-digit code or Chinese name) and the 30-trading-day limit for details, with a fallback to the web page for earlier data.

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