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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content (PE/PB/PS and historical percentile) and the code format, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether the data is point-in-time, or any rate limits or data freshness behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core output (PE/PB/PS + historical percentile) and then giving a code example. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more 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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly complete for invocation. However, with no annotations and no guidance on how to obtain valid codes, an agent might struggle to construct a correct call. The example code helps but is not exhaustive.

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 description must compensate. It explains the code parameter with an example format (pt01801780) and states it is a Shenwan sector code, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the exact format pattern, whether the prefix is required, or how to find valid codes.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it provides sector valuation metrics (PE/PB/PS) plus historical percentile. It distinguishes from siblings like ashare_quote and ashare_sector by specifying valuation metrics and historical percentile, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context: it is for sector valuation data, and the example code format (pt01801780) gives a hint about the expected code type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ashare_sector or ashare_quote, nor does it mention exclusions.

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