get_popular_hk_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('Markdown格式' - Markdown format) which is useful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is a real-time or cached list, what criteria define 'popularity', rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the single parameter, and the third specifies the output format. No wasted words.

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 (single parameter, list retrieval), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameter meaning, and output format. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks context about when to use it versus alternatives and behavioral details. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but more operational context would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('返回的股票数量限制' - limit on number of stocks returned) and default value (20). This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify range constraints or special cases.

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 purpose: '获取热门港股列表' (Get popular Hong Kong stock list). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('热门港股列表' - popular HK stock list), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hs300_stocks' or 'get_popular_us_stocks' beyond the HK focus.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different markets (US, HK, indices) and data types (real-time, historical, analysis), the description lacks any context about when this specific 'popular stocks' list is appropriate compared to other stock retrieval tools.

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