get_special_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about operation semantics. It never states that this is a read-only fetch, what happens when 'section' is omitted (metadata-only, no PDF download), or how limit/year interact — all of which sit in the schema rather than the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core verb-resource-scope is presented immediately. Appropriately sized for the information it chooses to convey.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with subtle behaviors (optional section triggering PDF download, limit-based selection), a one-sentence description is minimal. Rich schema coverage and an output schema reduce the burden, but the description still omits any behavioral framing an agent would want before calling it.

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 100%, so all five parameters (year, limit, section, category, ticker_or_name) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only 'by CNINFO category', which does not extend beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a concrete verb (Retrieve) and resource (special-type report) with scoping to CN-A-share companies and CNINFO categories, so the intent is identifiable. However, 'special-type report' is never defined, and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like get_filing or search_reports, leaving the agent to infer what makes a report 'special'.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative (get_filing, get_section, search_reports). The only routing hint ('Use list_report_types to browse') lives in the schema, not the description.

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