大盘后市观点：获取A股大盘后市展望

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. However, it offers no information about behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output entails (e.g., textual analysis, numerical scores, or structured data). The description merely states the purpose without any operational context.

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 phrase that repeats the title, making it under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information, such as the tool's specific function or key usage notes. While brief, it does not earn its place by adding value beyond what is already implied by the name and title.

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 (likely involving market analysis) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, or differentiate from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description fails to provide necessary context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 'date' parameter documented as '指定日期，默认当天' (specify date, default today). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without need for description compensation.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools such as 'macroResearch' or 'sectorReportAnalysis' that might offer related market insights. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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