个股最新行情：获取股票最新行情数据，包括价格、涨跌幅、交易量

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. While it mentions what data is returned (price, change percentage, trading volume), it lacks critical behavioral details such as data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. However, it's essentially a restatement of the title with minor elaboration, lacking front-loaded critical information about scope or limitations. While concise, it could be more structured to prioritize key usage details.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain output details. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple similar siblings, the description is too minimal—it doesn't address behavioral aspects like data sources, latency, or error cases. It's adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 (the 'query' parameter is documented as 'A股股票名称或代码' - A-share stock name or code), so the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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. With multiple sibling tools that seem related (e.g., 'sectortLatestPrice', 'etfLatestPrice', 'aShareMarketQuotes'), there's no indication of scope boundaries, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The tool name 'stockLatestPrice' implies it's for stocks, but this isn't clarified in the description.

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