stock_board_concept_hist_min_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a source URL and return type, with no additional behavioral context such as data coverage, rate limits, or output format nuances beyond what annotations already imply.

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 includes a structured docstring with :param and :return lines, making it easy to parse. The URL takes some space but is a useful reference. No redundant sentences.

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 provides parameter meanings and return type, which is adequate for a simple historical data tool. However, it does not explain what the period values mean (e.g., 5-minute intervals), how to obtain valid symbol names, or the shape/columns of the returned DataFrame, leaving gaps given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% coverage, the description compensates by documenting both parameters: symbol is described as '板块名称' (board name) and period is given an explicit choice set {'1', '5', '15', '30', '60'}. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the naked schema fields.

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 '分时历史行情' (minute historical quotes) for concept sectors on Eastmoney, which clearly identifies the resource and data type. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as stock_board_concept_hist_em or stock_board_industry_hist_min_em, though the name itself conveys the distinction.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, target use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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