get_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: large results are truncated to max_rows, the total row count is returned, and an HTTP-mode CSV download URL is provided. It still omits error behavior, rate limits, and explicit read-only/network caveats.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most relevant output behavior. There is no redundant or empty phrasing.

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?

The input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the important truncation and CSV behavior, though it could do more to clarify the workflow relative to the sibling discovery tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, params, and max_rows. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by explaining that max_rows controls truncation and that the total row count and CSV URL are returned.

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 clear action and mechanism: retrieve data by calling an AKShare interface. It is specific enough to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_interfaces and describe_interface tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool executes a named AKShare interface, while sibling tools likely help discover or describe interfaces. The description never states when to use this tool instead of search_interfaces or describe_interface, nor whether an interface must be described first.

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