stock_board_industry_hist_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream source and a reference URL, which is useful provenance, but says nothing about rate limits, date-range limits, or whether empty ranges return empty frames. With annotations carrying the load, this is an adequate 3.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and useful, but the body is raw docstring boilerplate with redundant ':type' lines that repeat the schema types, plus a bare URL. Readable but not tight.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says ':return: 历史行情 / :rtype: pandas.DataFrame', giving no indication of the returned columns (date, open, close, volume, etc.). For a five-parameter historical data tool, the parameter coverage is decent but the return contract is left thin.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema declares no enums, yet the description documents all five parameters in prose and supplies the allowed values for period ('日k','周k','月k') and adjust ('','qfq','hfq'), which the schema itself lacks. It does not state the expected date string format, so it is not fully self-sufficient, but it adds substantial meaning over the raw schema.

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 names a specific data source, scope and resource: '东方财富网-沪深板块-行业板块-历史行情' (Eastmoney CSI industry board historical quotes), which is a clear verb+resource. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as stock_board_concept_hist_em, stock_board_industry_hist_min_em or stock_board_industry_spot_em, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use or alternative-routing guidance; the text is purely a parameter docstring. The agent is not told how this differs from the concept-board or minute-level historical siblings.

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