Company Performance Hk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the tool retrieves data, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. For a financial data tool, additional context about data availability or constraints would be helpful.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the core functionality without extraneous content. Every word is necessary. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not clarify the return format. It mentions the data types but not the structure or period granularity. The schema descriptions are thorough, but the overall context is minimally sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Some gaps remain, such as expected data range or examples.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the types of financial statements, which are already reflected in the 'data_type' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade parameter understanding but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states it retrieves comprehensive performance data for Hong Kong listed companies, including income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '港股上市公司综合表现数据' are specific. The sibling tools 'company_performance' and 'company_performance_us' indicate geographic differentiation, and the tool name includes 'hk' to disambiguate.

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?

Description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used. The context of 'hk' in the name implies it's for Hong Kong stocks, but the description itself lacks any comparative or exclusionary language.

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