get_business_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the A-shares limitation and the content of the return (product/region split), but it does not state whether it is read-only, require authentication, or mention any edge cases (e.g., companies with no breakdown). Since this is a simple data-fetch tool, the risk is low, but the description does not explicitly cover these traits beyond the core functionality.

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 extremely concise: one content line for purpose and two short argument definitions with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with parameter docs. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the data is, for which market, and how to parameterize the call. It could mention data availability caveats, but they are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The Args section adds essential meaning: symbol is described as a stock code, and count is '取最近几个报告期' (number of recent reporting periods) with a max of 8. This is far beyond the bare schema (which has no descriptions), compensating for the 0% schema coverage with clear, practical parameter semantics.

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 it provides a business breakdown (主营构成) with revenue, cost, and gross margin split by product and region, and scopes it to A-shares only. This is a specific verb+resource (get breakdown) and distinguishes it from financial statement or profile tools by its explicit domain.

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 implies usage for when detailed revenue/cost/margin segmentation is needed, and the A-shares restriction is a de facto usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_financial_statement for consolidated figures') or any when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the selection partly to inference.

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