get_performance_express_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what the output looks like (e.g., report format, structure). For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though overly brief. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from alternatives. This leaves critical gaps for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond implying a date range (start_date, end_date). It doesn't explain 'code' (stock code? index?), 'limit' (pagination? max rows?), or 'format' (output format options). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Performance express report within date range' restates the tool name 'get_performance_express_report' with minimal elaboration. It mentions 'report' and 'date range' but doesn't specify what type of performance data, for which entities (stocks, indices, etc.), or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profit_data or get_operation_data. This is essentially a tautological expansion of the name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial data (e.g., get_profit_data, get_balance_data, get_historical_k_data), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent guessing about tool selection.

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