gangtise_research_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it is a list query with filters, but fails to disclose behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with 18 parameters.

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 concise, with a front-loaded date context note essential for accurate time-based queries. The core purpose is stated in one sentence. No unnecessary repetition, though the bracket note adds slight overhead.

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 large number of parameters (18) and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. The schema partially compensates with parameter descriptions, but completeness is only moderate.

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 schema has 56% description coverage, and the description lists filter dimensions but does not add detailed semantics beyond what is in the schema. For a tool with many parameters, additional parameter-specific guidance would be beneficial, but the baseline is acceptable.

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's action (查询) and resource (券商研报列表), and lists supported filters. However, it does not distinguish this list tool from sibling tools like 'gangtise_research_download' or 'gangtise_research_outline', which also deal with broker research reports.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists filter options but offers no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or instructions for selecting this tool over similar siblings.

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