search_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that matches are returned with codes, but does not mention edge cases (e.g., no matches), result ordering, or how the limit parameter affects results. The behavior is mostly captured but lacks important contextual details.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds useful information about supported inputs and outputs.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains the core purpose and input flexibility, but does not describe the result shape beyond 'stocks with codes' and omits notes about default limits or behavior when multiple matches exist. While adequate for a simple search, it leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of pinyin abbreviation and partial code support, which slightly extends the schema's examples, but the schema already includes illustrative examples. The description does not add meaningful information about the limit parameter, so added value is minimal.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'stock', and specifies supported input formats (Chinese name, pinyin abbreviation, partial code). It also states the output ('matched stocks with codes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote and get_kline that retrieve specific data rather than 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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a partial identifier or name) through examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or get_kline. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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