forbes_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URLs but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like network dependence or data formatting specifics.

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 concise and avoids unnecessary fluff, but the two URL lines and the wildcard token add noise without clear purpose. The layout is a docstring fragment rather than a clean, agent-oriented description.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives source URLs and return type, but it does not specify the DataFrame's columns or how the symbol maps to specific Forbes lists. The ambiguous wildcard and lack of output schema leave a notable gap in completeness.

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?

The description documents the symbol parameter with example choices but includes an ambiguous '*' wildcard that is never explained. The schema's default value '2021福布斯中国创投人100' is not among the listed choices, creating confusion. It provides partial compensation for the 0% schema coverage but is incomplete.

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 identifies the resource as 福布斯中国-榜单 with source URLs, and the return type indicates it fetches list data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like '获取' or '返回', and differentiation from similar ranking tools (e.g., hurun_rank) relies on the brand name rather than a stated purpose.

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 such as hurun_rank or xincaifu_rank. The description only lists parameter choices and return type, with no contextual usage instructions or exclusions.

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