open_industry_rules_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait that this launches a local web server at http://localhost:<port>. However, it omits the behavior that matters most for an agent: whether the call blocks while the server runs, whether a busy port causes failure, and how the dashboard is stopped. Those lifecycle traits are left entirely to inference.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by concrete scope and features. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information (what it opens and what's in it) comes first.

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 need not be explained, and the content scope is well covered. The gap is behavioral: for a server-launching tool the agent still lacks blocking/termination semantics, which no structured field supplies.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents port, its default of 8888, and its type; the description adds nothing beyond echoing it as <port> in the URL. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Start the industry rules web dashboard') and then quantifies the scope it exposes: 21,698 rules across 31 申万 L1 industries with filtering, search, sorting, and pagination. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the data-retrieval siblings like list_outline or search_reports, which return records rather than launching a UI.

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?

Usage is implied by the feature list — an agent can infer this is for interactive browsing/filtering rather than programmatic record retrieval — but the description never states when to prefer it over the many list_*/get_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The filtering capabilities hint at the use case without naming an alternative.

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