hurun_rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and providing per-indicator year availability, which helps the agent understand data constraints beyond the annotations.

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 structured as a docstring with a title, source URL, parameter documentation, and return type. It is somewhat lengthy due to the year mapping, but every section contributes useful information, and the front-loaded title and URL provide clear context without excessive fluff.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what parameters are valid, and the return type. It lacks examples or error-handling notes, but for a simple data retrieval tool, the provided details are largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly documents the 'indicator' parameter with an explicit choice list and the 'year' parameter with per-indicator valid ranges, adding substantial meaning beyond the plain string schema. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 returns Hurun ranking data for a specified indicator and year, with a list of available indicators. It is specific about the resource (Hurun rankings) and the action (retrieve data), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling ranking tools like forbes_rank or xincaifu_rank.

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 usage context by enumerating valid indicators and year ranges, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The parameter documentation gives practical constraints, but there is no direct guidance on selection among the many ranking tools in the sibling list.

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