stock_lh_yyb_most

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the return type is a pandas.DataFrame and that it contains the most-appearances ranking, plus a source URL. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits, which is acceptable given the annotations, but the content is minimal.

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 extremely concise: a title line, a URL, and a return type/description. All three elements carry useful information and nothing is redundant. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a no-parameter data retrieval tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: source, return type, and the specific ranking metric. While it could offer more context about what the data represents or how it is sorted, the existing information is sufficient for basic use.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It appropriately stays silent on parameters.

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 retrieves data about business department rankings by number of appearances on the 龙虎榜 (Dragon-Tiger List) from 同花顺's data center. It specifies the exact metric ('上榜次数最多') and provides a source URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like stock_lh_yyb_capital or stock_lh_yyb_control.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only added context is the source URL, which does not help an agent decide between this and similar ranking tools.

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