交易日期：获取今天的日期和是否交易日、上一个交易日期、下一个交易日期

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires network calls, potential rate limits, data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. cached), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 mirrors the title, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the purpose but lacks any additional context that would earn its place, making it feel sparse rather than optimally structured for clarity.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. It states what data is returned, and the output schema can handle return values, but it doesn't address behavioral aspects or usage context. For a no-param tool with output schema, this is adequate but leaves 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'currentDatetime' (which might provide general date/time without trading context) or 'aShareMarketEvents' (which could include trading calendar events), leaving the agent with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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