gangtise_opinion_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds a date-handling instruction for current date/time, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are read-only. The mutation risk is not clarified, but the tool name 'list' implies read operation.

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 two sentences with a date instruction prefix. It is reasonably concise, though the date note could be moved to a separate instruction or annotation. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the structure could be improved by separating context from the main 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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and filter capabilities but lacks details about output format, pagination defaults, or performance implications of fetchAll. The schema partially addresses size and fetchAll, but the description does not integrate this explicitly.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema; the date note is already present in the schema's startTime/endTime descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided by the description.

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?

Description clearly states it queries a list of domestic institutional chief analyst opinions with filters, matching the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like gangtise_foreign_opinion_list, but the name and context imply differentiation.

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 lists supported filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., foreign or independent opinion lists). Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling names, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given.

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