问财选基金（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 full burden. It identifies the data source (同花顺问财) and describes the screening behavior, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations.

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 focused sentence, lists meaningful examples without filler, and includes the relevant data source URL. Everything present earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how it behaves regarding pagination and scope. It does not, and it also lacks guidance relative to the many sibling screening and query tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the kinds of dimensions the natural-language query can cover, which helps an agent construct an effective query.

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 specific verb ('筛选') and resource ('公募基金'), and lists concrete screening dimensions such as fund type, performance, fund manager, risk, holdings, and asset allocation. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like query_fund_data or select_etf.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a screening use case but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when query_fund_data or other selective tools would be more appropriate.

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