stock_sector_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a pandas.DataFrame and that one sector category yields no detail, which is incremental context. It adds little else (no pagination, no failure modes), so a 3 is appropriate.

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 docstring is short and front-loads the resource name, but it carries Sphinx boilerplate (:type, :return, :rtype) and a bare URL that add clutter for an agent. Information density is acceptable but not tightly optimized.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the purpose and parameter origin. However the mismatch between the documented value set and the schema default, plus the absence of any enum constraint in the schema, leaves the input format insufficiently pinned down.

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 coverage is 0% (no enum, no description on the 'sector' property), so the description must carry the burden; it does explain that sector is the label from stock_sector_spot and lists candidate values. However those values ({"新浪行业","概念","地域","行业"}) are inconsistent with the schema default "gn_gfgn", which is a code-like value, leaving the actual accepted format ambiguous.

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 the specific resource (新浪行业板块成份详情) and the source variant (Sina industry sector board detail), giving an agent a clear verb+resource. It also ties itself to the sibling stock_sector_spot as the origin of the input value, aiding differentiation. It is somewhat terse and the operation is implied rather than stated as an explicit verb.

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?

It provides one useful precondition (sector must come from stock_sector_spot's label) and one exclusion ("启明星行业" has no detail), which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what the intended workflow is beyond that single hint.

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