研报搜索（同花顺问财）

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the tool aggregates reports and returns certain data; it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the external source is queried live, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or scope limitations beyond 'mainstream institutions'. The data source URL is helpful but not behavioral.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. The inclusion of the data source URL is useful context, though not strictly needed for invocation, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, the data source, and the type of returned content. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from stating search result structure or any constraints (e.g., date range, source coverage), and it lacks any mention of alternatives.

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 input schema already documents both query and size with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor detracts.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it searches research reports (研报) and returns investment decision information such as analysis logic, investment ratings, and target prices. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like query_insresearch_data, but the focus on mainstream institutional reports and specific output fields makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: if an agent needs research reports or investment ratings, this is the tool. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like search_news or query_insresearch_data, leaving the choice to inference.

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