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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden: it discloses read-only behavior, states the exact return scope (codes and names only, no quotes), and documents cross-market coverage with code-format examples (hk00700 five-digit, usAAPL). It does not mention result caps or ranking/sort behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the two warnings, each carrying distinct actionable content (return scope and market coverage). Dense and slightly notation-heavy, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, the one parameter is fully documented, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical facts: it is a lookup-only step, which markets it spans, and which tools to chain afterward. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the single q parameter is already documented with examples. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: that matching is fuzzy and intended for disambiguation, and that identifiers may be HK/US prefixed codes as well as A-share names or numbers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (股票/基金/板块模糊搜索) plus the disambiguation role, and immediately distinguishes itself from quote/kline siblings by declaring it returns only code and name. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the trigger condition ('用户只给名称时先用这个确认代码') and names the follow-up tools (ashare_quote / ashare_kline) for the data this tool does not provide. Effectively states when to use it and what to do next instead of expecting one call to do everything.

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