get_hk_history_kline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the resource and period types, such as output format or pagination. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information (get HK historical K-line, periods). There is zero waste or filler.

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 tool is relatively simple with one required parameter and all parameters documented in the schema. The description covers the core purpose and period choices. While there is no output schema or mention of return format, the tool name and description imply standard K-line data, so it is sufficiently complete for this context.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters, including enum values and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (获取/get), resource (港股历史K线/HK stock historical K-line), and scope (日/周/月 daily/weekly/monthly). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_us_history_kline and get_minute_kline, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 obtaining HK stock historical K-line data in daily/weekly/monthly periods, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling context suggests many market-specific kline tools, but no guidance is given.

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