get_inner_trade_data

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 does not mention that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any limitations. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point. While it could be expanded for clarity, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 that the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description is not required to explain return values. However, the lack of any behavioral context (e.g., what insider trading data includes) and no annotations make the description minimally adequate but not complete for an informed selection.

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 100% coverage: both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides parameter semantics.

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: '获取公司内部股东交易数据' (Get company insider shareholder trading data). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the function understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_shareholder_info, but the term 'inner_trade' suggests a focus on insider transactions, providing implicit differentiation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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