get_main_business

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (Markdown table) but does not address read-only nature, potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error 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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: purpose, Args, Returns, Example. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the parameter requirement and outcome sufficiently for a simple tool, though edge cases or errors are not mentioned.

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 description significantly enriches the parameter stock_code by specifying the format (数字后加上交易所代码，如300750.SZ). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 explicitly states '获取主营构成分析' (Get main business composition analysis), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_business_review or get_financial_ratios, which cover different aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides an example and format requirements but does not specify conditions for use or exclude inappropriate scenarios.

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