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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by calling it a '行情榜' (market ranking), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or mention any rate limits or prerequisites. Since it is a simple data retrieval tool, the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about its safety profile.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and includes the usage trigger at the end. Every clause adds value, and it is easy to scan. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides all essential information: what it returns (sector rankings with gains and leading stocks) and when to use it (rising sectors/rotation). The agent can decide to call it without needing additional context.

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 is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that; it adds context about what the tool returns (gains and leading stocks), which is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 identifies the tool as a sector market ranking, specifying the resource (sectors) and the sub-categories (industry, concept, region) plus the leading stocks. It also provides a distinct trigger phrase ('哪些板块在涨/板块轮动'), which helps the agent distinguish it from sibling tools like ashare_sector_valuation or ashare_market_overview.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks which sectors are rising or about sector rotation. This is a direct usage guideline, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the trigger conditions are precise enough to route the agent correctly.

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