A股大盘行情：获取指定日期A股主流指数（上证指数、深证成指、创业板指、科创板指、北证指数、恒生指数等）行情。

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 states the tool '获取' (gets/fetches) quotes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of returned data. While the output schema exists, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 that repeats the title verbatim, making it front-loaded but redundant. While concise, it wastes space by not adding value beyond the title. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one merely restates existing information.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and rich sibling tools, it lacks context on differentiation, behavioral traits, or usage scenarios. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't address other gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, format, and default). The description mentions '指定日期' (specified date) but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sectorLatestPrice' (for sector indices) or 'stockLatestPrice' (for individual stocks), nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the title/description alone without explicit context.

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