ic_backtest_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is '冻结的' (frozen/static) and that raw market data/panels are excluded, which sets expectations. It does not mention output format or other traits, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate and not misleading.

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 a single sentence with two parts: the purpose and the exclusion. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately defines the data domain and its limitations. It tells the agent what to expect (a frozen IC summary) and what not to expect (raw quotes/panels). It does not describe the output structure, but that is less critical for such a straightforward read-only tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to convey. The description confirms it is a simple read operation with no input needed, which aligns with the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: '读取冻结的因子历史 IC 摘要' (reads frozen factor historical IC summary). It also explicitly excludes raw market data and panels, distinguishing it from data-retrieval tools. This fully satisfies the purpose clarity criteria.

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 a clear when-not: '不提供原始行情或面板' (does not provide raw quotes or panels), indicating it shouldn't be used for raw data. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit positive use-case guidance beyond the read action. Thus it has clear context with an exclusion but lacks explicit alternatives.

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