stock_lhb_yybph_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and parameter domain but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as sorting criteria, data freshness, or pagination. No contradiction with 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 concise and structured in docstring format, listing source, params, and returns without excessive prose. It is front-loaded with the identifying title. Minor fragmentation prevents a perfect score.

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 simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description provides the source, valid parameter values, and return type. However, it lacks detail on the exact contents of the returned DataFrame (columns, sorting) and does not clarify how '营业部排行' is defined, which may cause ambiguity among the many LHB sibling tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly enumerates the allowed values for 'symbol' ({近一月, 近三月, 近六月, 近一年}) and specifies the return type. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition, which only has a default 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 the East Money Dragon-Tiger List business department ranking ('营业部排行') and provides the source URL. Although written as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, it is unambiguous and distinguishes from siblings like stock_lhb_yyb_capital or stock_lhb_yyb_control by focusing on the ranking aspect.

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 alternative LHB tools. The description simply states the data source and parameter choices, without any contextual cues or exclusions.

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