northbound_shareholding_sh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions what data is retrieved ('深港通北向数据') and basic parameter information. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (format, structure), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the minimal functional description.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter. There's no wasted language, though the structure could be slightly improved by more clearly separating the functional description from parameter documentation.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the northbound data returns, what fields are included, or how to interpret the results. Given the complexity of financial data and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the returned data structure.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'date' parameter defaults to the current day and specifies the required format ('2022/01/19'). This provides crucial semantic information that the schema alone doesn't convey, though it doesn't cover all potential parameter behaviors (like what happens with invalid dates).

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 tool's purpose: '获取深港通北向数据' (Get Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect northbound data). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('深港通北向数据' - northbound data), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'northbound_shareholding_sz' (which likely gets southbound data), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'northbound_shareholding_sz' or explain the difference between northbound and southbound data. There's no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus other financial data tools in the sibling list.

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