Industry Rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds return structure details (items array with counter_id, name, chg, lists[]). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or rate limits.

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 (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it uses untranslated Chinese terms (e.g., 领涨, 单级) which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese-speaking agents. Still, it efficiently conveys key information.

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?

The complexity is moderate with 4 string parameters and no output schema. The description includes the return items structure but omits explanations of the fields (e.g., 'chg', 'lists[]'). It also does not clarify '单级' vs '多层' sorting behavior. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining indicator numeric codes as Chinese descriptive labels and clarifying sort_type values (单级/多层). It also specifies default behavior for limit ('returns all'), which goes beyond 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 clearly states it returns an industry ranking list by market and indicator, with specific indicator values described. It also mentions related tool industry_peers, but does not clearly differentiate from other industry-related sibling tools.

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 implies usage by specifying market, indicator, and sort type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like industry_peers or industry_valuation. The mention of passing counter_id to industry_peers hints at a follow-up, but no when-not-to-use criteria.

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