stock-analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are sorted by publish time descending and that arbitrary account IDs are supported. However, it does not describe output fields, pagination behavior, rate limits, or empty/failure cases.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful built-in account list. No redundant sentences, though the account list makes it slightly long.

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?

The parameter schema is complete and the description covers purpose, scope, sorting order, and valid account sources. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return structure and pagination details are unspecified, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing concrete built-in account IDs for the required `account` parameter, giving the agent valid callable examples. The `days` and `offset` parameters are already fully described in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: querying historical WeChat official-account articles by account ID for A-share big-V accounts. It gives a specific verb-resource pair ('获取其历史文章') and includes concrete built-in account IDs, which distinguishes it from sibling search, feed, and top-list tools.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for review/stock-picking material collection and should be used when querying articles by WeChat account ID. It also clarifies support for arbitrary account IDs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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