证券官媒检索：获取相关证券官媒资讯

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by '检索' (search).

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?

While technically concise (a single phrase), this is an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place - it provides no useful information beyond what's already in the tool name and title. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, which this description lacks entirely.

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 that this tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and operates in a domain with many similar sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to provide essential context about when to use this tool, what makes it unique, or any behavioral characteristics. For a search/retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this description is inadequate.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve financial information (etfRelatedNews, sectorNewsAnalysis, weMediaSecuNews, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over those alternatives. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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