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

The description discloses that the search is fuzzy and supports cross-script conversion via OpenCC when available. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching stock objects), result limits, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this is the only behavioral information available, and it is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and query format. However, it lacks details about the return value, such as whether it returns a list of stock objects or a summary, and does not address potential pagination or limits. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more 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 only defines 'query' as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying that the query can be a stock code, English name, or Chinese name, which clarifies the acceptable input format. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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's function: fuzzy searching stocks by code, name, or Chinese variants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stocks, which likely provides a full listing rather than a targeted search.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_stocks or get_stock_overview. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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