chConceptList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'No arguments' usefully signals a zero-input call, and the name/verb imply a read-only listing, but nothing states authentication needs, rate limits, or result size. With an output schema present, the return-format gap is partially mitigated.

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, with the purpose stated first and the no-argument note last. The bilingual restatement is mildly redundant but costs little.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with a full output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it: what it returns (concept sectors) and that no inputs are required. Only the when-to-use context against siblings is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the calibration the baseline is 4. The description's 'No arguments' correctly confirms there is nothing to supply.

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 list of concept sectors'), which is enough to separate it from sibling chIndustryList and the various *CurReal tools by resource. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest 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?

The only usage information is 'No arguments.' There is no indication of when to call this versus chConceptCurReal, chConceptDayHistory, or chIndustryList, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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