gangtise_valuation_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data sources it uses, if it requires special permissions, or any rate limits. The only behavioral context is that it queries data; no safety or side-effect information is given.

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 brief but includes a lengthy date-context instruction that is not part of the tool's purpose. The core description is one sentence, which is concise, but the extra preamble makes it less structured and less focused on the tool itself.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and returns potentially complex data (valuation time series with percentiles), the description does not explain return values, column names, or how to interpret results. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the indicator options. The schema descriptions themselves are minimal (just enums), so the tool description does not improve understanding of parameter semantics.

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 queries valuation indicators and historical percentiles, listing specific supported indicators (PE, PB, PEG, PS, PCF, EM). The verb '查询' and resource '估值指标及历史分位数' are specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with financial statements or other data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like financial statement queries or other valuation-related tools.

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