chStockList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the operation is a simple read-only enumeration and 'get the list' conveys that adequately. It does not mention whether the list is cached/static, how large it is, or any permission requirements, which would be useful for a full-universe call.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the return fields and the no-argument fact. No padding whatsoever.

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?

With an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained, and a parameterless list tool is intrinsically simple. The description covers purpose and return fields; only the usage context relative to sibling list tools is thin.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Stating 'No arguments' reinforces this and matches the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of all A-share stocks') and even names the returned fields (code/name), which separates it from sibling list tools like chConceptList and chIndustryList by domain. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only guidance is 'No arguments,' which is a schema fact, not usage guidance. It never says when to reach for this tool versus chConceptList, chIndustryList, or the real-time quote tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is the static base universe list.

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