Ir Records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: an output contract (only real entries, empty list with annotation when none exist, no fabrication), a neutrality guarantee (facts only, no buy/sell recommendations), and a disclosed data source (East Money announcement interface). Missing permission/auth and rate-limit details keeps it from 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but purposeful (method, output contract, data source). Some content, such as the neutrality reminder and skill cross-reference, is boilerplate that does not directly help invocation, keeping it short of a 5.

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-value enumeration is not needed, and the description still adds the output contract and data source. The main gap is the undocumented parameters, but against a present output schema the definition is largely complete for correct invocation.

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% and the description never mentions the two parameters. The required 'code' and 'page_size' are left entirely undocumented; an agent can only guess that 'code' is a stock/announcement code and that 'page_size' paginates. The description does not 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it searches/filters the announcement list for entries whose titles contain '投资者关系活动记录表' and returns art_code/title/date. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling ann_content, which is explicitly named as the body-fetching tool.

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?

It explains the workflow context and routes the agent to a sibling: the minutes body must be fetched separately via ann_content and then structured. It gives clear context but frames ann_content as a complement rather than spelling out when this tool should be preferred over or combined with other announcement tools.

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