A股行业PE对比

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves PE comparison data without specifying data freshness, scope details (e.g., all industries or specific), or any limitations. The optional date parameter is noted but behavioral implications (e.g., default behavior, real-time vs. historical) are absent.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first stating the action, the second the purpose. No extraneous words; every part contributes value.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates core functionality and intended use. It could briefly hint at the output format (e.g., a list of industries with PE values), but current completeness is sufficient for selection.

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 a single date parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expected for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states '获取A股各行业PE对比数据' (get A-share industry PE comparison data), clearly identifying the resource and action. It also specifies intended uses: industry valuation comparison and rotation analysis, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_market_pe_percentile which focuses on market-level percentiles.

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 clear context for use ('用于行业估值比较和行业轮动分析'), indicating scenarios where this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would further clarify selection among siblings.

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