fund_portfolio_industry_allocation_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description does not add any additional behavioral traits such as data availability, rate limits, or what the DataFrame contains; it only states it returns a pandas DataFrame of industry allocation, which is minimal.

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, containing a title, URL, parameter docs, and return type in five lines. It is front-loaded with the title and no extraneous content.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details about the DataFrame's columns, valid year ranges, or when data is available. For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides ':param symbol: 基金代码' (fund code) and ':param date: 查询年份' (query year), which clarifies the meaning and ensures the agent knows what to pass. Defaults are also present in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving industry allocation (行业配置) from the fund's investment portfolio section on EastMoney, with a URL and return type indicating the data. It is distinct from sibling tools like fund_portfolio_hold_em and fund_portfolio_bond_hold_em. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query', relying on the noun phrase title.

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 gives no information about when to use this tool compared to other fund portfolio tools (e.g., fund_portfolio_hold_em) or alternative data sources (e.g., fund_report_industry_allocation_cninfo). It only provides parameter docs and return type, with no usage context or exclusions.

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