get_market_pool_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses date-fallback behavior, that THS excludes Beijing, that all-market fallback yields partial results, and the important caveat that no snapshot does not prove no limit-ups. It omits permission/auth, caching semantics (no_cache is never explained), and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: resource and payload first, then parameter semantics, then data-integrity caveats. The telegraphic style and abbreviations (THS) cost a little readability, but essentially every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decisions an agent must make: date handling, kind/source/market selection, pagination and time caps, and the partial-result caveat. The remaining gaps are the format and no_cache parameters and the exact return shape, which are minor relative to the complexity handled.

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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines kind (up/broken), source (auto/eastmoney/ths), market (all/shsz), and bounds for limit, max_pages, and max_seconds, plus the semantics of the two allow_* flags. Only format and no_cache go undocumented 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 opening sentence names a specific resource (raw limit-up/broken-board pool) and enumerates the content it returns (seal times, open counts, funds, provider fields). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named siblings get_limit_up_pool and get_limit_down_pool, leaving the 'raw/details' distinction to be inferred.

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?

It gives concrete conditional guidance — omit date for the latest snapshot, set allow_date_fallback for mismatched explicit dates, set allow_partial_scope for all-market fallback — which effectively tells the agent how to drive the tool. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over get_limit_up_pool or get_limit_down_pool, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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