get_stock_board_industry_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states '实时行情数据' (real-time data) but does not mention potential caching, rate limits, or error behavior. As a read operation, it lacks details that could affect agent decision-making.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency despite being brief.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential functional scope without needing to elaborate on return values, as those are documented in the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'output_format' has a clear description and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 description clearly states '获取所有行业板块实时行情数据' which translates to 'Get real-time market data for all industry sectors'. It specifies the action (get), resource (real-time market data), and scope (all industry sectors), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual stocks or indices.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for obtaining industry-wide real-time data, there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools like 'get_realtime_data' or 'get_stock_basic_info'. The usage context is only implicit.

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