policy_topic_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that local static mappings are prioritized, that these mappings were validated via web_search, that real-time retrieval hints may be returned, and that the output is JSON. It does not discuss failure behavior or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before explaining the mapping behavior and downstream use. The parenthetical '股票题材猎手轮子' is slightly jargon-heavy, but it does not obscure meaning or add significant clutter.

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 has an output schema, three optional and fully documented parameters, and a description that explains the mapping priority and how an agent should use the result. It lacks explicit fallback behavior when no local mapping is found, but the available context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by linking '优先命中本地固化映射' to use_static and '实时检索补全' to enrich_hint, but it does not substantially deepen parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description states a clear verb-resource relationship: it maps a policy theme/keyword to individual stocks ('政策主题→个股映射'). It also distinguishes itself by describing the local fixed-mapping mechanism (theme_enrich), though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to contrast with.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool after obtaining a policy theme, to resolve beneficiary stocks and optionally get real-time verification hints. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools should be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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