chConceptDayHistory

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about date-range limits, pagination, history depth, or permissions. An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but behavioral constraints are not.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, leading with the purpose before the argument list. The bilingual duplication adds length without new information, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are present, so an agent can call it. However, the odd code example and absent usage or behavioral context leave it only minimally 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 0% and the single 'code' parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by labeling it 'str' and giving a sample value ('300502'), but that example is ambiguous since it resembles a stock code rather than a sector identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get daily K-line history for a concept sector.' The 'concept sector' qualifier distinguishes it from the parallel siblings chIndustryDayHistory, chStockFrontDayHistory and ChMarketDayHistory, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over the concept-related siblings (ChConceptCurReal, chConceptList), and no prerequisites stated. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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