AKBridge Call

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining *what* side effects touch (global state or credentials) and that explicit user authorization is required before invocation. It does not cover pagination behavior or what a mutating call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the safety constraint is front-loaded into the second sentence. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but with 8 parameters, a nested arguments object, and destructiveHint=true, the description should do more to explain how arguments are passed through and what include_metadata/include_metrics change. It is adequate for the side-effect case but thin for the parameter surface.

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 only 38%, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It merely lists output_mode, page, and page_size as 'deterministic output controls' without explaining the raw/compact/summary semantics or pagination behavior, and it says nothing about the arguments object or include_metadata.

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?

States a specific verb + resource: 'Resolve and call one AKShare interface', which is a clear execution primitive. It implicitly contrasts with the search/describe siblings by framing this as the call path, though it never names them explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule — interfaces flagged side_effect=true require explicit user authorization — but gives no guidance on when to use this versus akbridge_search or akbridge_describe, nor any prerequisite workflow (e.g., call describe first to inspect a function). Usage is implied by the 'call' verb rather than stated.

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