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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the lookup is fuzzy and disambiguates names to codes, but it doesn't describe behavior for multiple matches or no matches. For a non-mutating search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short, dense clauses: purpose first, then usage. There is no filler, repetition, or restating of schema information.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the input means, and when to invoke it. Not describing return values is acceptable because an output schema exists; slightly more detail on no-match behavior would make it fully complete.

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 schema gives no description for q, so the description must compensate. It explains that q is a stock/fund/sector name supplied by the user and that matching is fuzzy, which is enough semantic context for the single parameter.

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 states a clear action—searching stocks/funds/sectors—and its purpose: fuzzy disambiguation to confirm a code when only a name is given. This differentiates it from the sibling quote, kline, and fund tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool first when the user supplies only a name, to confirm the code. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the '先用这个' (use this first) instruction implies it precedes other tools.

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