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 'Echo back a message,' which implies a simple read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics. The mention of 'Example interface for scaffold' adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool (implied by 'echo' as output).

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 extremely concise with two short sentences: 'Echo back a message. Example interface for scaffold.' Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output expectations. While the tool is basic, the description should provide more context for effective use, such as what 'echo' entails or example usage.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'message' but doesn't explain what it represents, its format, or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Echo back a message.' This is a specific verb ('echo back') and resource ('a message'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'fund.knowledge' or 'fund.stock_search', which likely have different functions, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 mentions it's an 'Example interface for scaffold,' which implies it might be for testing or demonstration, but this is vague and doesn't offer explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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 only states what the tool does ('获取的知识库列表信息') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 Chinese phrase, which is concise but under-specified. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient in conveying value.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or return values, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively. This is a low-tier description for a non-trivial tool.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters (kw, pageSize, pageNum), their meanings, formats, or usage. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 '获取的知识库列表信息' (Get knowledge base list information) restates the tool name 'fund.knoewledge' in Chinese, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('知识库列表信息' - knowledge base list information), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'fund.echo' or 'fund.stock_search'. The purpose is vague about what exactly is being retrieved.

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 like 'fund.echo' or 'fund.stock_search'. The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API source but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about how this tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with 8 Chinese characters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). Every word earns its place, but more information might be needed for proper tool understanding.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides none of the necessary details about parameters, behavior, outputs, or differentiation from alternatives that an agent would need to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'input' and 'count' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving both completely undocumented. For a tool with 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this represents a significant gap in understanding what the tool expects.

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 the tool's purpose: '搜索股票信息' (search for stock information) with the resource being stocks. It specifies the data source ('基于东方财富API' - based on East Money API), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fund.echo or fund.knowledge, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of what makes this tool different from its siblings (fund.echo and fund.knowledge), nor any context about when this search tool would be preferred over other methods. The only contextual information is the API source, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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