研报评级统计：个股（上市公司）或行业的评级统计

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information beyond the purpose, such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., statistical summaries, time-series data). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and potential data retrieval implications.

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, repetitive phrase that mirrors the title, lacking any structure or front-loaded information. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to convey useful details efficiently. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one adds minimal value beyond the title, making it ineffective rather than appropriately concise.

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 the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), 100% schema coverage for inputs, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete but with significant gaps. It identifies the resource but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a statistical tool with three parameters, this is barely adequate, scoring at the lower end of viable.

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%, meaning the input schema fully documents the parameters (endDate, query, startDate) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on the 'query' field (e.g., format for stock codes vs. industry names). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'stkResearch', 'industryResearch', and 'sectorReportAnalysis' that might overlap with research-related functions, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent uncertain about tool selection.

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