个股估值面：获取股票的PE、PB、ROE、毛利率、净利率，所属行业市盈率等公司估值数据。

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. It states the tool retrieves valuation data but doesn't describe the response format, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness (e.g., whether it's real-time or historical). For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the valuation metrics. However, it's somewhat repetitive with the title and could be more front-loaded with key usage information. While concise, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or prioritization of information.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving valuation data), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what data is returned, and the output schema will handle return values. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context, but overall it provides enough information for basic use.

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%, with both parameters ('date' and 'query') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the 'query' format or 'date' handling). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'stockFunAnalysis' (which might include valuation metrics) or 'stockLatestPrice' (which provides price data). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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