get_szse_company

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Resolve' implies a non-destructive lookup, but nothing is said about ambiguity handling (multiple matches), error behavior for unknown tickers, or whether the call is cached. With an output schema present, return-value description is not required, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, the scope, the input constraint and the data source all land in one pass.

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 read with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, entity type and input format, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It would be complete if it clarified the ticker-vs-name parameter naming and what happens on an unmatched ticker.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the ticker format is already fully documented in the schema; the description only restates it. One note of friction: the parameter is named 'ticker_or_name' while both the schema and the description restrict usage to a 6-digit ticker, leaving the name branch unexplained. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('SZSE-listed company') and the required identifier format ('6-digit ticker'), so the operation is unambiguous. The exchange qualifier plus the (szse.cn) marker implicitly separates it from get_sse_company/get_bse_company/get_hk_company, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by scope: an agent can infer 'use this for Shenzhen-listed companies, not SSE/BSE/HK'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the sibling get_company aggregator or the exchange-specific alternatives.

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