lookup_stock_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the tool is a diagnostic tool, describes the behavior of the refresh parameter (local cache vs re-download), and implies it is read-only by nature. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, but the context suggests it is safe. The description adds sufficient behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections: main description, strategy, critical rules, and args. Every sentence is useful. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly provides actionable guidance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral rules. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 provides all parameter semantics. It explains stock_code as '6-digit stock code, e.g. "000001" or "600519"' and refresh as 'Force re-download of szse_stock.json from CNINFO (default: false)'. This adds meaningful examples and behavior beyond the schema's type/title fields.

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 purpose: 'Look up CNINFO orgId mapping for a 6-digit A-share stock code. Diagnostic tool.' The verb 'look up' and resource 'CNINFO orgId mapping' are specific. It is distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., download_cninfo_announcement) which deal with announcements, not code mappings.

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 includes a <strategy> section explicitly stating when to invoke: 'Invoke ONLY when download/list returns "Stock code not found". After success, retry the original list/download call.' It also provides critical rules about preferring refresh=false first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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