list_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies a read operation via 'List'. It omits pagination behavior, ordering, default result size, and any auth or rate-limit context. The schema mentions error conditions, but the description adds essentially no behavioral insight.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too thin for a five-parameter listing tool, which slightly undercuts the benefit of its brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter schema is thorough. However, the description leaves the source-versus-sibling distinction and any usage caveats entirely to inference, making it only adequate rather than complete.

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 (form, year, limit, category, ticker_or_name) are already documented in detail, including mutual exclusivity and error behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (CNINFO disclosures) scoped to a CN-A-share company. Naming CNINFO implicitly separates it from the SSE/SZSE/BSE/HK filing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling listing tools (list_sse_filings, list_szse_filings, etc.) that select a different exchange. The useful exclusivity rules (form vs category, use list_report_types) live only 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.