行业估值水平

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the tool returns an overview ('概览') of P/E and P/B valuations, implying a read-only, side-effect-free snapshot, but says nothing about data recency, industry coverage, or response shape. For a zero-parameter read tool this is minimum-viable but not rich disclosure.

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 with no filler. Every element (获取, 申万一级行业, 估值, P/E/P/B, 概览) carries distinct meaning and earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation: an agent knows the data domain (SW Level-1 industry valuations) and that no arguments are required. The only gap is the unspecified response structure beyond '概览', which matters little since invocation has no inputs to get wrong.

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?

There are zero parameters; the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage by construction, so the baseline 4 applies. The description adds the semantic context that the output is an overview of valuation metrics rather than a detailed query, which is all that can be added.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('获取'), a well-defined resource (申万一级行业估值) and the exact metrics returned (P/E、P/B). This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like industry_quotes (prices) and industry_capital_flow (fund flows) purely by data domain.

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 when/when-not guidance or named alternatives appears anywhere in the description. Usage must be inferred from the clear purpose: call when a Shenwan Level-1 industry valuation snapshot is needed. The zero-parameter schema keeps this ambiguity low-impact.

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