Industry Rank

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the return structure (items array with counter_id, name, chg, lists) and the usage of counter_id for a downstream tool. No contradictions 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and key parameters, the second describes output and a downstream usage hint. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return format (items array with key fields) and hints at integration with a sibling tool. Given the tool's simplicity (ranking list with filters), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the indicator codes (0=领涨, etc.) and sort_type meanings (0=单级, 1=多层), which are not fully detailed in the schema. This extra context helps an agent understand parameter semantics beyond the basic types.

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 the tool returns an industry ranking list filtered by market and indicator, specifies parameters like sort_type, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'industry_peers' by mentioning how to use the output. The verb 'rank' plus resource 'industry' is specific and unique among siblings.

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 provides guidance on using the output ('Pass counter_id directly to industry_peers') and lists valid market and indicator values. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its purpose for industry ranking queries.

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