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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states '只读查询' (read-only), which signals safe invocation, and '交易时段内更新', which sets freshness expectations. This goes beyond the minimal mutation-safety disclosure and is valuable context.

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 compact, front-loads the output contents and primary use cases, then adds routing exclusions and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundant filler.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the tool is simple enough that the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data is returned, when to use it, when not to use it, read-only safety, and data freshness. No material gap remains.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). No parameter description is needed; the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing for the description to add.

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?

Description names a concrete resource ('板块行情榜') and specifies its contents: 行业/概念/地域涨幅、领涨股、涨跌家数. It also names the exact sibling (ashare_sector_valuation) as a distinct alternative, clearly differentiating the tool from at least one major sibling.

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?

Provides explicit trigger examples ('哪些板块在涨/板块轮动/行业热度') and an explicit exclusion: for 估值分位 use ashare_sector_valuation. The only gap is the vague '对应工具' for 产业链上下游, which does not name a specific sibling.

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