gangtise_income_statement_hk

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions date conversion and filtering support, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a data query tool.

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 sentence with a necessary date context instruction. It is front-loaded and concise, containing no redundant information. The date instruction could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it is clear and 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, default behaviors, or how to combine filters. Compared to similar tools, more context (e.g., available fields, data ordering) is needed for completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that the tool supports filtering by period, fiscal year, and report type, but this merely reiterates the schema descriptions without additional context or constraints. Baseline 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 tool queries the Hong Kong stock income statement under Chinese accounting standards using specific verbs ('查询') and resources ('港股利润表'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'gangtise_income_statement' (likely A-share) and other HK financial statement tools.

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 HK income statement data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other financial statements). No comparison or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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