stock_board_concept_info_ths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of rate limits, response size, or any side effects. The only additional detail is the source URL, which is not behavioral. Given the low bar for annotated tools, this still scores low because the description adds essentially no transparency 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 brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It repeats '板块简介' multiple times and lacks a clear, structured sentence explaining the tool's purpose. The URL and docstring format are not front-loaded with actionable information. It is shorter than it should be, but not in a way that earns conciseness credit—it omits essential details.

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 no output schema, the description must explain what the returned DataFrame contains, but it only says '板块简介' (sector introduction) with no field details. The parameter semantics are also ambiguous, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call confidently. Despite the simple one-parameter tool, the description is severely incomplete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 for the single parameter 'symbol' is 0%, and the description's ':param symbol: 板块简介' is unhelpful and redundant—it says the parameter is the sector introduction, not what values it accepts (e.g., name vs. code). The default '阿里巴巴概念' suggests a name, but the URL contains a code, creating ambiguity. The description fails to clarify the parameter format, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 is essentially a title '同花顺-板块-概念板块-板块简介' followed by a URL and docstring, indicating it returns a concept sector introduction. It identifies the resource (concept board) and return type (DataFrame), but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'. It is somewhat distinguishable from sibling tools by the word '简介' (introduction), but not clearly differentiated from similar THS concept board tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other concept board tools such as stock_board_concept_spot_ths or stock_board_concept_summary_ths. The only context is a URL and parameter docstring, which do not help in tool selection.

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