个股风险扫雷：获取个股潜在的风险信息。

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 only states the tool's purpose without describing any behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources are used, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of returned risk information. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It repeats the title without adding any meaningful content that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool effectively. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single sentence fails to provide value beyond what's already in the tool 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 that annotations are absent and the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description should still provide more context about what constitutes 'risk information' and how this tool differs from other stock analysis tools. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably provides important risk assessment functionality. It doesn't establish the tool's role within the broader ecosystem of sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('query' described as 'A股股票名称或代码' - A-share stock name or code). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema adequately documents the parameter, and the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for application, or comparison to sibling tools like 'stockBizHighlight', 'stockRepInsight', or 'stockValuation' that might also provide risk-related insights. There's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what its limitations are, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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