A股市场大事：获取A股市场相关宏观、产业、行业、上市公司（股票）重要事件，并解读其中机会。

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving and interpreting events, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles authentication, rate limits, or what the interpretation entails (e.g., AI-generated insights, structured data). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the retrieval and interpretation aspects, but it remains appropriately concise for its content.

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 complexity (event retrieval and interpretation), no annotations, and an output schema (which exists but isn't provided here), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and how interpretations are generated. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but the gaps in behavioral transparency and guidelines make it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (endDate, maxCnt, query, startDate). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema hints, or how the query parameter maps to events. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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. With siblings like 'officialSecuNews' (official securities news), 'sectorNewsAnalysis' (sector news analysis), and 'stockBizHighlight' (stock business highlights), there's clear potential for overlap, but the description doesn't indicate how this tool differs in context, timing, or focus. It's a generic statement with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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