get_northbound_holding_rank

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The description adds meaningful context by noting the default TOP 100 limit to avoid oversized responses, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as return format or sorting specifics beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose, followed by a parenthetical explaining the default response limit. No wasted words; all content is directly relevant.

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 read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and default pagination but does not describe the response structure or typical fields (e.g., stock code, name, holding change). Given the tool's simplicity and the good schema coverage, it's minimally complete but leaves room for more detail on output.

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 description coverage is 100% — all four parameters have descriptions. The description's mention of 'different periods' and 'TOP 100' reinforces the period and topN parameters, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches stock rankings for northbound/Shanghai/Shenzhen Stock Connect holdings, with the specific focus on holding-change rankings over different periods. This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from generic quote tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_northbound_realtime or get_northbound_history.

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 description explains the tool can view rankings by different periods, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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