港股关键指标

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data type (key financial report indicators) and market, but does not disclose response structure, indicator names, rate limits, or any limitations. For a read-only get operation, it is adequate but not rich.

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 core action and resource. No wasted words, effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description does not explain what specific indicators are returned or the return format. Without an output schema, this gap makes the description less complete than it could be, though it is minimally adequate.

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% for the single 'symbol' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about symbol format (e.g., '00700' vs 'HK.00700'), leaving potential ambiguity. Baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves key financial report indicators for the Hong Kong stock market. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('港股市场的股票财务报告关键指标'), distinguishing it from siblings like stock_indicators_a and stock_indicators_us by market.

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 stocks via '港股市场', but it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternative market-specific tools. No direct exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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