获取个股所属板块

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic function. Furthermore, the description says 'A股个股' but the parameter description includes examples like AAPL (US stock) and HK00700 (HK stock), creating an internal contradiction about the tool's scope. This inconsistency is misleading.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and to the point. It effectively front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness, hence not a perfect score.

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 description lacks important context for an AI agent. It does not specify the return format, what exactly 'industry and concept sectors' means, or any restrictions (e.g., only A-share vs. multi-market). Given the many sibling tools, more detail is needed for correct tool 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% for the single parameter 'symbol'. The schema already provides an adequate description of the parameter format. The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter, so it does not enhance the semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves industry and concept sector information for A-share individual stocks. The verb '获取' (get) and resource 'A股个股所属的行业和概念板块信息' are specific, and the title matches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_board_cons or stock_industry_pe, which focus on different aspects of sectors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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