quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that data is real-time (a useful freshness trait) but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, market-hours behavior, or whether results are cached/delayed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the format hint, with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing is wasted.

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 fields need not be explained, and the single parameter's format is covered. However, for a tool with two nearby siblings, the complete absence of usage guidance leaves a real gap in selecting it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies the exact ts_code format with concrete examples ('600519.SH / 000858.SZ'), which the schema omits entirely. It could still clarify what the suffix means (exchange) or whether bare codes are accepted.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('实时报价' / real-time quote), so an agent knows it fetches current price data for a security. It does not differentiate itself from siblings run_screen or latest_results, leaving the boundary between 'quote' and 'latest_results' ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus run_screen or latest_results, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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