问财选基金公司（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 behavioral burden; it does disclose the data source (同花顺问财 with URL) and the filtering dimensions, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or any limits, and does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, so full transparency is not achieved.

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 short sentences with the core function and criteria front-loaded, and only a useful data-source attribution after. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and data source, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the result set looks like, so an agent is left guessing about the tool's return format.

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 domain context by listing selection dimensions that a natural-language query may include, but it does not add any page/limit semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific action (筛选, screen/filter) and a specific resource (公募基金公司, public fund companies), and names concrete criteria. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_fund or select_fundmanager, which target funds and managers respectively.

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should use this tool when the user wants to screen public fund companies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative select_* tools, leaving routing decisions mostly to inference.

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