美股关键指标

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of retrieving data without mentioning whether it is read-only, any permissions required, data freshness, or return format. The verb '获取' (get) implicitly suggests a safe read, but no explicit limitations or side effects are disclosed.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition, front-loading the core function. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, and every word contributes to conveying the 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 a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, but the description fails to enumerate what 'key indicators' are returned or how they might be structured. It also omits any mention of market scope limitations or typical use cases, leaving the agent with only a broad purpose and no details to determine invocation 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?

The input schema already declares the sole parameter 'symbol' with the description '股票代码' (stock code), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, examples, or acceptable exchanges, so it remains at the baseline for adequate 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 identifies the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and the specific resource ('美股市场的股票财务报告关键指标' meaning 'key indicators of US stock financial reports'). The '美股' qualifier differentiates the tool from sibling tools like stock_indicators_a and stock_indicators_hk, making the purpose 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as stock_info, stock_prices, or stock_indicators_hk. It merely states the function without any context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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