每日报告-按日期

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read operation on the reports table, but does not disclose what happens when rdate or rtype are empty (both have empty-string defaults), how missing data is handled, whether results are paginated, or the return shape. For a simple lookup this is a noticeable transparency gap.

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 operation and resource before the parameter specs. Every clause earns its place—the rtype enumeration and date format are essential and not redundant with the schema. It is slightly dense due to the packed semicolon-separated parameter notes, but remains efficient.

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 two-string-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core essentials: the operation, valid inputs, and date format. Gaps remain in sibling differentiation, optional-parameter behavior, and return-format expectations, all of which an agent would need to invoke it confidently. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 0%, and the description compensates meaningfully by specifying the allowed rtype values and the exact rdate date format. However, it does not explain why both parameters are optional (required: 0) or what behavior results from omitting them with empty defaults. The description adds real value over the bare schema but does not fully resolve parameter ambiguity.

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 (读取/read), a resource (reports 表), and the composite key (rtype, 日期). It enumerates the valid rtype values (premarket/noonnews/qualitystock/dailyreview) and rdate format (YYYY-MM-DD), making the tool's function concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like report_latest or report_history, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools report_latest, report_history, and report_types cover adjacent use cases, and the description never mentions them or states a selection condition such as 'use this when you need a specific date's content rather than the latest'. Usage context is only implied by the parameter semantics, not stated.

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