run_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: execution time (2-5 minutes), an authentication prerequisite (TUSHARE_TOKEN) for full mode, and the sample size for test mode. It never states that the operation is read-only or whether it has side effects, which is the remaining gap.

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 dense lines: the purpose first, then a pipe-delimited mode table. No filler, no repetition, and the highest-value constraint (runtime, token) is attached directly to the mode it applies to.

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 multi-minute screening job with a default-able single parameter, the description covers purpose, mode semantics, cost, and auth. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the description omits whether pool mode depends on prior configuration or whether results are persisted for latest_results.

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% and the schema exposes 'mode' as a bare string with no enum, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining all three values (full/pool/test) with their scope and cost. It does not state that full is the default, which the schema alone conveys.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('跑完整5层漏斗选股') and enumerates the five funnel layers, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings latest_results or quote, which is the only gap.

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 mode line gives concrete when-to-use conditions for each mode: full for the whole market with a 2-5 minute cost and TUSHARE_TOKEN requirement, pool for a watchlist, test for a 10-stock sample. There is no tool-level routing guidance (e.g. when to prefer latest_results instead), so it stops short of 5.

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