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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the entitlement requirement ('需要 PRO 及以上套餐') and the resulting 403 error, which is useful behavioral context. It also states the return type and field list. However, it doesn't mention potential pagination, empty results, or other error cases, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-line purpose, a single critical requirement note, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns field list. Every element serves a purpose, and the format is scannable. The length is justified by the return field enumeration, which provides concrete output expectations.

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 description covers the core aspects: purpose, parameters, returns, and a subscription constraint. However, it leaves important usage details ambiguous, such as whether symbol is required (though schema says optional), and how start_date/end_date interact with period. The output schema exists but is not shown; the return field list partially compensates. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description repeats these descriptions verbatim (e.g., 'symbol: 证券代码（带后缀）') without adding new meaning. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether period supersedes start_date/end_date). Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 applies, with no added semantic value.

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 opens with '业绩快报（财务数据）' which clearly identifies the resource as financial express report data. The Returns section further specifies it returns a JSON array with financial fields, making the tool's function clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'query' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as 'forecast' or 'indicators', so it's not a perfect 5.

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 only usage-related information is the PRO-tier requirement with a 403 error note, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'forecast' or 'income', nor any exclusions or context for which scenarios this tool is designed for. The description implies use for express financial reports but provides no explicit guidance.

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