stock_concept_cons_futu

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 covered. The description adds context that this returns a pandas DataFrame from a specific Futu page, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations and adds minor value beyond them.

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 compact and structured as a docstring with sections for symbol, type, return, and a source URL. Every line adds value: the title, the URL, the parameter explanation, and the return type. No redundant or filler 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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the data source (Futu sparks-us page), the valid parameter values, and the return type (DataFrame). It could potentially mention the market (US) but the URL and concept names imply it, so it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema only defines symbol as a string with a default and no description or enum values (schema coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by listing the exact allowed choices (巴菲特持仓, 佩洛西持仓, 特朗普概念股) and explaining that symbol is the sector name, giving the agent complete information to select a valid value.

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 returning constituent stocks of Futu's concept sectors (富途牛牛-主题投资-概念板块-成分股), with a specific source URL. It distinguishes itself from other concept tools by naming the Futu source and listing the exact selectable concept names, making the tool's scope explicit.

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 through the limited symbol choices (e.g., 巴菲特持仓, 佩洛西持仓, 特朗普概念股) and the Futu-specific focus, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like stock_concept_cons_em or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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