港股关键指标

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 does not mention return format, potential errors, data source, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that only states the basic purpose, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, but the description is brief and does not specify which key indicators are included or what the response structure looks like. While adequate for a simple fetch, it leaves some gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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% (the 'symbol' parameter has a description '股票代码'), and the tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves key financial report indicators for Hong Kong stocks, using a specific verb ('获取') and a specific resource ('港股市场的股票财务报告关键指标'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_indicators_a and stock_indicators_us by explicitly mentioning the HK market, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage context is implied: the tool is for HK stocks, and given sibling tool names (stock_indicators_a, stock_indicators_us), an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the differentiation largely to the tool name.

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