describe_interface

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral weight, and it does disclose the returned fields (title, source address, param metadata) and that it is a read/inspect operation. However, it says nothing about error behavior when an interface name is invalid, or any auth/rate constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact sentence with zero waste that front-loads the action and enumerates the returned content. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose and returned content adequately; only minor gaps around invalid-name behavior and alternative routing keep it from a 5.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is well documented in the schema, including an example (stock_zh_a_hist). The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 (查看/view) and resource (接口/interface) and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, data-source address, and each parameter's default value, type, and description. This clearly distinguishes it as an inspection tool versus search_interfaces (discovery) and get_data (data retrieval), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_interfaces when the interface name is unknown. The inspect-before-fetch pattern is only inferable from the sibling names, not from the description itself.

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