get_limit_down_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond structured fields — that an omitted date resolves to the most recent trading day — but says nothing about it being a read-only query, any auth requirements, rate limits, or result size.

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 short sentences, resource first and the parameter clarification second. Nothing is padded and everything present is actionable.

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?

With only one optional parameter, an output schema present, and full parameter semantics documented, the definition is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing hint versus the limit-up sibling, which the name largely resolves anyway.

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 0%, and the schema's default for date is an empty string with no explanation. The description supplies the missing meaning: the parameter is optional, uses the YYYYMMDD format, and an empty/default value resolves to the latest trading day — the essential facts an agent needs to format the call.

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?

"跌停池" identifies the resource and, by contrast with the sibling get_limit_up_pool, implies it returns the limit-down pool. However it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no verb or explicit scope statement, so the agent must infer that this is a read/query operation.

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 implies usage by stating that date is optional and defaults to the most recent trading day, which tells the agent the tool works without arguments. It never states when to prefer this over get_limit_up_pool or other market-data siblings, so guidance is only implied.

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