A股估值对比

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the output includes PE/PB and industry percentile, but lacks details on output structure, side effects, or authentication needs. Since it's a read-only data retrieval, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 Chinese sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 covers the core function. It mentions the returned metrics (PE/PB percentile), which helps an agent understand the output. However, without an output schema, complete details are absent, but for a straightforward tool, this is nearly sufficient.

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% for the single parameter 'symbol', which includes format examples. The tool description adds context that the tool is A-share focused, aligning with the parameter. No additional semantic enrichment beyond the schema is provided, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 provides valuation comparison data for individual A-share stocks, including PE/PB percentiles within their industry. This differentiates it from sibling tools like stock_industry_pe (industry-level) and stock_market_pe_percentile (market-level), using specific verb '获取' and resource '估值对比'.

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 implies usage for A-share individual stock valuation relative to industry, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for US stocks, use stock_overview_us; for industry averages, use stock_industry_pe). No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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