get_stock_industry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns data and mentions 'empty code -> whole market' but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal beyond basic purpose.

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?

Three short sentences: first states purpose, second gives special behavior for code, third lists expected fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

Given simple tool with optional parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, parameter behavior (code), and return fields. However, could clarify whether it returns classification for a specific stock or all stocks when code is empty, and mention that date is optional.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for the 'code' parameter (empty returns whole market) but does not explain the 'date' parameter beyond its presence in the schema. Partially compensates for schema gap but not fully.

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 industry classification (申万), specifies that empty code returns whole market, and lists the fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on industry classification, not other financial data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_basic or other data retrieval tools. Only hints at how to use code parameter for whole market, but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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