get_plate_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. Only lists parameters without behavioral context.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences. However, it includes Chinese translations that may not be needed for English agents, slightly increasing cognitive load. Still efficient overall.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps. It does not describe the return format (e.g., plate names, codes), pagination, or how many results to expect. Insufficient for fully informed usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds explicit values for 'market' (HK/US/SH/SZ/SG/MY/JP) and 'plate_type' (ALL/INDUSTRY/REGION/CONCEPT), but does not explain 'count' or 'keyword'. Partial improvement over schema.

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 uses specific verbs 'List plates' and states the resource type (concept/industry/region). It also lists supported markets and plate types, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that retrieve other financial 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 implies usage by listing parameters and defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_industrial_plate' or 'get_owner_plate'. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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