基本资料查询（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful context by noting that input is a natural-language question and that data comes from 同花顺问财. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response format, data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving behavioral coverage partial.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds useful scope: asset categories, example information types, input format, and data source. The URL and category list are informative rather than redundant.

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?

For a read-style query tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, what input is expected, and where the data comes from. It could be stronger by explicitly routing the agent among the many sibling query tools, but '静态信息' provides enough differentiation for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, page, and limit. The description's statement about natural-language input largely restates the query parameter's schema description and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 identifies a specific verb ('查询') and resource: basic/static information across all asset classes, listing concrete fields such as '基础信息、发行主体、机构资料、费率、上市地点/日期'. The phrase '静态信息' clearly differentiates this from sibling tools focused on market, finance, industry, or macro data.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when needing static fundamental/basic information about a wide range of instruments, and provide a natural-language question. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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