财经资讯搜索（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses return fields (title, URL, summary, source, publication time) and data source, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or any access limitations. This is moderate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, coverage, output, and provenance with no filler. The most important function (financial news search) is front-loaded.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation facts: query type, return fields, and source. It lacks detail on result ordering or behavior beyond the schema default, but this is not critical for successful invocation.

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 already fully describes both parameters: query as a natural-language question and size with a default of 10. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific resource: a financial news/information search engine, listing coverage and return fields. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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 text implies use for financial news queries by describing content coverage (official media, financial media, vertical sites, company websites), but it does not state when to prefer this over search_announcements, search_reports, or query_* tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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