get_boards_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: results carry tradeDate/snapshotTsMs/stale and a 'stale' value means the data is not from today. That freshness caveat is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about read-only nature (only implied by 'get'), return shape, ordering behavior, or what retries/require_fresh actually do at runtime.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. But the terseness is partly cryptic: the opening line is an external-tool cross-reference that costs the reader interpretation effort, and the dangling 'Preserve tradeDate/snapshotTsMs/stale' fragment assumes context the agent may not have.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description covers only the mode values and a staleness warning. An agent still cannot tell what a call returns structurally, how sort/limit behave, or what format values are legal.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies 'mode' (major/sub/concept) — genuinely helpful since the schema merely defaults it to 'sub' with no enum — while sort, limit, format, retries, and require_fresh remain entirely undefined in both places.

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?

The description identifies the resource as an 'industry/concept heatmap' but frames the purpose by reference to an external CLI ('Same ... as a-share-data fetch_danginvest --summary') rather than stating directly what this tool returns. It implies a board-level summary rather than per-stock data, which loosely distinguishes it from get_board_members or list_industries, but no sibling is named or excluded.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent is told only that the output matches another tool's --summary mode. Nothing tells the caller how this differs in intent from get_hot_sectors, list_industries, get_industry_data, or get_industry_info, all of which sound plausible for a similar task.

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