stock_industry_category_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the source URL and a return-type note, disclosing nothing extra about behavior, auth, rate limits, or result characteristics beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the raw API URL and 'p_public0002' endpoint reference add clutter that does not help an agent select or call the tool, and the Sphinx-style :param/:type/:rtype scaffolding is verbose. Acceptable 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the valid parameter values and notes the DataFrame return, which is useful since no output schema exists. Given the annotations cover safety, the definition is nearly complete, missing only routing guidance against siblings.

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 single 'symbol' parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description carries the load and does so well by spelling out all eight classification-standard choices, which the raw schema lacks. It could explain the default's effect, but this is a strong compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource (巨潮资讯 industry classification data) and the underlying p_public0002 interface, with a clear query intent implied by the docstring. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like stock_industry_pe_ratio_cninfo or stock_industry_change_cninfo, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It enumerates the valid classification standards but never explains which to pick or what situation calls for this tool over the sibling industry tools.

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