AKBridge Describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is met without description help. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing what the agent receives, notably the side_effect flag, which directly informs a later akbridge_call decision. It does not mention cost/rate limits or failure behavior for unknown names, keeping it at 4.

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: the first states what is returned, the second gives the workflow rule. No filler, and the content is front-loaded with the core action.

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 the description need not explain return values in detail, and it correctly stays brief while noting useful fields like side_effect. The remaining gap is the unexplained `include_schema` toggle, which affects whether schema detail is returned at all.

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 only 50%: `name` is described in the schema, but `include_schema` (default true) has no description anywhere, and the description's mention of 'parameters' refers to the payload of the described interface rather than this tool's own inputs. With half the parameters undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Describe') plus precisely scoped resource ('one AKShare interface'), and it enumerates exactly what the response contains (parameters, signature, return metadata, side_effect flag, example call). The wording 'one ... interface' plus the workflow sentence clearly separates it from akbridge_search (find names) and akbridge_call (invoke 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?

Explicit sequencing: confirm a name returned by akbridge_search before calling it, which tells the agent exactly where this fits in the workflow and names the alternatives. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., when the name is already known/verified), so it falls just short of a 5.

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