问财选板块（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the data source and screening criteria; it does not mention output format, pagination behavior, side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool.

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 two concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the source attribution provided without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It also omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent with enough to invoke the tool but not enough to fully plan follow-up actions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying what kinds of conditions the natural-language query should support (industry valuation, capital flow, price change, sector type), which helps the agent construct a valid query. It does not add detail on page/limit, but those are already fully documented.

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 states a specific verb ('筛选') and resource ('市场板块'), and enumerates the condition types (valuation, capital flow, price change, sector type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_astock and select_etf, which target different asset classes.

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 implies the tool is for screening sectors by multiple conditions, but it never explicitly states when to use it over alternatives such as query_market_data or query_industry_data. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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