get_stock_discussions

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what data is returned and implies read-only behavior but does not disclose any side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and parameters are well-explained in the description, it is largely complete. It slightly lacks explicit disambiguation from similar post-fetching tools (e.g., search_posts, get_hot_posts), but the usage context partially covers that.

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 0%, but the description's Args block explains each parameter: symbol (stock code), sort (hot/time with definitions), count (max 30), page (page number). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's default values, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 fetches stock-specific discussion posts with author, follower count, likes/comments, and content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying '个股讨论区' (individual stock discussion) and mentioning market sentiment and retail/whale opinions, which is a specific resource and purpose.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: '想了解市场情绪、散户与大 V 观点时使用' (use when wanting to understand market sentiment, retail and big-V opinions). This guides when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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