板块涨跌幅榜单：查询日期区间内涨跌幅最大的板块榜单，并提供相关消息

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides '相关消息' (related messages), which adds some context beyond basic ranking. However, it doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or what authentication might be required. The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise - essentially repeating the title in Chinese. While this is efficient, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. However, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain unnecessary verbiage.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and moderate complexity (ranking with date ranges and sector types), the description is minimal. It states the basic purpose but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral characteristics, or relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'sectorPriceChangeReason' (which might explain reasons for changes) or 'sectorLatestPrice' (which might provide current prices rather than historical rankings).

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