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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions input and general output but omits details such as data freshness, market coverage (only A-shares, confirmed), rate limits, or whether it requires specific data subscriptions.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, containing no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify the format of the returned sector information (e.g., list of names, codes) or any limitations, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description for the single 'symbol' parameter, including format examples. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: retrieving industry and concept sector information for A-share stocks. The verb '获取' and resource '个股所属板块' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like stock_sector_fund_flow_rank and stock_board_cons by focusing on individual stocks' 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 only states the tool's function without providing guidance on when to use it or when alternatives (e.g., stock_board_cons for sector constituents) might be more appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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