港股关键指标

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states '获取' (get), implying a read operation, but does not disclose specifics such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. More detail is needed to inform the agent.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, conveying the core functionality efficiently.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of indicators, data format). It does not. Additionally, while the tool is simple with one parameter, the description lacks details on symbol constraints, data latency, or any required context. The agent would likely need to infer or explore further.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'symbol' described as '股票代码' (stock code). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the expected format of the symbol (e.g., numeric code, prefix) or provide examples. The tool's purpose mentions 'key financial report indicators' but does not connect to the parameter.

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 specifies '获取港股市场的股票财务报告关键指标' (Get key financial report indicators for Hong Kong stock market), clearly indicating the verb (get), resource (financial indicators), and scope (Hong Kong stocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_indicators_a and stock_indicators_us by explicitly mentioning '港股' (Hong Kong stocks).

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 description implies usage for Hong Kong stock financial indicators based on the title and name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implicitly differentiated by market, but no further guidance is given.

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