get_performance_express_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns are in 'Markdown table' format and mentions the optional nature of these reports, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't describe error handling beyond 'error message', rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness—significant gaps for a data-fetching tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a contextual note, and separate Args/Returns sections. It's appropriately sized, but the note about optional publishing could be more integrated; otherwise, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and output format. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or data availability constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'code' is a stock code with an example ('sh.600000'), clarifies that dates are for 'report publication/update' (not trading dates), and specifies the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'fetches performance express reports for a stock within a date range' with a specific verb ('fetches'), resource ('performance express reports'), and scope ('for a stock within a date range'). It distinguishes the resource type from siblings like 'get_forecast_report' or financial data tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate usage context from them.

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 note 'Companies are not required to publish these except in specific cases' provides implied guidance about when data might be unavailable, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_forecast_report' or other financial data tools. No clear usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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