search_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions it returns the standard code, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, rate limits, authentication, or error handling. 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage condition, and a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant text.

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?

The description covers the main use case, parameter semantics, and return type (standard code). Since an output schema exists, the exact response structure is not required here. Minor gaps include error handling and behavior when no matches are found, but these are not critical for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query accepts names, pinyin initials, or codes (with examples '茅台', 'gzmt', '600519'), and limit specifies return count with a maximum of 20. This adds substantial value 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 states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (stock) with a clear method (by name, pinyin, or code) and a defined return (Xueqiu standard code). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_posts and screen_stocks by focusing on individual stock lookup rather than screening or post 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?

It explicitly states when to use: '当用户给的是公司名称而不是代码，且需要确认具体标的时使用' (when the user gives a company name instead of a code and needs to confirm the specific target). This is a clear condition, but it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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