company_performance_hk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('获取'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a financial data tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from data types. Every part of the sentence contributes value, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, financial data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what (financial data retrieval) and scope (Hong Kong companies), but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. The schema handles parameters well, but the description doesn't fill other gaps sufficiently for a higher score.

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 description mentions financial statement types (income, balance, cashflow) which align with the 'data_type' parameter, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema, but it also doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's thorough documentation.

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 purpose: '获取港股上市公司综合表现数据，包括利润表、资产负债表、现金流量表等财务报表数据' (Get comprehensive performance data for Hong Kong-listed companies, including income statements, balance sheets, cash flow statements, and other financial report data). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get), resource ('港股上市公司综合表现数据' - Hong Kong-listed company performance data), and scope (financial statements). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_performance' or 'company_performance_us', which appear to be similar tools for different markets.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'company_performance' (likely for other markets) or 'company_performance_us', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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