chIndustryDayHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only historical fetch but says nothing about data range, granularity beyond 'daily', pagination, or availability, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact args note. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but the whole thing is short and wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and this is a simple one-parameter read tool. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks enough context to confidently pick this tool over the adjacent history tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does name the single required parameter 'code' with a concrete example value ('300502'). It still doesn't clarify format constraints or whether the code must exist, but the example adds real value over the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb (get) and resource (daily K-line history), and the 'industry sector' scope distinguishes it from concept/stock/market siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the scope noun alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling history tools (chConceptDayHistory, chStockFrontDayHistory, ChMarketDayHistory) or any preconditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the sector-scope phrasing.

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