ETF消息面：获取ETF基金最近相关新闻资讯

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. The description only states what the tool does ('获取ETF基金最近相关新闻资讯') without revealing any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what '最近' (recent) means temporally. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise, it could be more structured by including usage context, but it doesn't waste words.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines the return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a simple parameter set, the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral details and sibling differentiation. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 the 'query' parameter documented as 'ETF基金代码或ETF基金名称' (ETF fund code or ETF fund name). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. With sibling tools like 'officialSecuNews' and 'weMediaSecuNews' available, the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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