invest_theme_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that results are sorted by date descending and that the list is history-oriented, implying a read-only retrieval, but it does not mention output shape, pagination, or whether any caching/collection state is involved.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, ordering, and use case with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it and understand its core purpose. The main gap is not relating it to the closely related invest_theme_* siblings, but the dashboard use case partially covers that.

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 schema has one optional parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention limit at all. The parameter name and default value in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no compensation for the missing semantic explanation.

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 identifies the resource as a historical list of hot topics/investment directions, adds the key sort behavior (date descending), and states its intended use for dashboard date switching. This differentiates it from sibling tools like invest_theme_latest and invest_theme_date without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use the tool ('用于看板切换日期'), which is enough to guide an agent toward the history-list use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full when/when-not guidance.

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