查找股票代码

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core lookup behavior and the recommendation to route around this tool when the code is known, but it does not disclose the output format (single code vs. multiple matches), how matches are ranked, or how the market parameter affects results. Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, the second provides a practical routing tip. Zero filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one usage decision but omits return-value details and the interaction between the market parameter and the search keyword. It is serviceable but an agent cannot fully predict result behavior (e.g., multi-market ambiguity, code vs. name matching).

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% for both parameters (market with market abbreviations, keyword with accepted input types). The description reinforces the notion that the keyword maps to a stock code but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify, for instance, how the default 'sh' market filters results or whether a code-typed keyword bypasses market filtering.

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: 查找股票代码 (look up stock codes) using keyword inputs like stock name or company name. It is clear and specific, though it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling market_data_search_name, and its routing hint names market_prices as the alternative rather than distinguishing from other search tools.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use condition—when the stock code is already known, skip the search and use market_prices directly. This names an alternative and gives clear exclusion criteria. However, it does not address the market parameter's role in narrowing searches or mention other search-like siblings such as market_data_search_name.

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