search_stock

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the search action and returned data without revealing any additional traits such as fuzzy matching behavior, handling of ambiguous matches, sort order, or the fact that the operation is read-only. For a search tool this is a modest but notable gap.

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, dense sentence in Chinese that immediately conveys the core function and output. There is no filler or redundant repetition of parameter names. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential inputs and outputs (returned code and market). However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't fully specify the exact return format, possible empty-result behavior, or the effect of the limit parameter in practice. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 already documents both parameters well (coverage 100%). The description adds value by specifying that 'keyword' can be a name, pinyin, or code fragment, which goes beyond the schema's examples ('茅台', '腾讯', 'apple'). This extra semantic nuance helps the agent understand the acceptable input range for the keyword parameter.

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: searching stocks by name, pinyin, or code fragment, and returning the stock code and market. The verb 'search' plus the resource 'stocks' is specific, and the supported search modes add useful detail. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_stock_quote', the naming and described output make the distinction obvious enough.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to find a stock code or market by a keyword like a name or code fragment. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention that get_stock_quote is the appropriate sibling for retrieving price data. The examples in the schema hint at typical usage but don't formally establish selection criteria.

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