板块行情查询与归因：查询日期区间的板块行情，并给出归因消息

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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the attribution messages come in, or how the data is sourced. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic function stated in the title.

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?

While technically concise (a single sentence), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to front-load critical information and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the title. It's too brief for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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's complexity (historical sector analysis with attribution), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. While the output schema may document return values, the description should still explain the tool's purpose, behavioral characteristics, and usage context more thoroughly. For a financial analysis tool with attribution capabilities, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 three parameters (endDate, query, startDate) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify date format requirements, what constitutes valid 'query' values, or how the parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools available (sectorPriceChangeRank, sectorCapAnalysis, sectorFunAnalysis, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool is for historical analysis, current status, or comparative purposes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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