stock_lh_yyb_control

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source URL and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which are useful behavioral cues. However, it does not explain what the DataFrame contains or any potential quirks, but it does not contradict 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 and to the point, but it is structurally fragmented, consisting of a title, URL, and return annotations rather than a coherent descriptive paragraph. It avoids verbosity but lacks a clear explanatory sentence, making it less effective for agent comprehension.

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 tool returns a DataFrame about '抱团操作实力' but the description does not explain the data's content, columns, or meaning. With no output schema, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet. The URL provides the source but not the semantic details necessary for understanding what the returned data represents.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 essentially repeats the tool's title ('同花顺-数据中心-营业部排名-抱团操作实力') and provides a URL and return type, but does not clearly state the tool's function. It fails to differentiate from closely related siblings like stock_lh_yyb_capital or stock_lh_yyb_most, leaving the agent uncertain about what specific data this tool provides.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No usage context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. The agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario for selecting this tool over other stock_lh_* or stock_lhb_* options.

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