Ann List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: a data source, an output contract (descending by publish time), an integrity constraint (only real interface entries, no imagined announcements), and a no-recommendation policy. It stops short of pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then input, output, contract, and constraints in short labeled lines; each line earns its place. Slightly verbose in restating the output fields despite an output schema existing, but no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, and the description nonetheless specifies ordering, source, and non-fabrication constraints, which is more than required. The remaining gap is page_size behavior and how to retrieve further pages, which the agent cannot infer from either schema or description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain code (6-digit stock code) with format detail beyond the bare 'string' schema, but page_size is never mentioned even though it controls result count and defaults to 20.

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: list an individual stock's recent announcements, with the required input (6-digit code) and the returned fields named. It is distinguishable from content-oriented siblings only implicitly through the art_code hint ("取正文用"), so it does not fully route the agent away from ann_content or earnings_ann by name.

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?

Usage is implied (monitor a stock's announcements) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as ann_content or earnings_ann. The parenthetical art_code note lightly implies ann_content is the follow-up call, but the agent must infer that.

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