查找股票代码

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits beyond the schema: the tool is relatively time-consuming ('比较耗时') and does not support cryptocurrency ('不支持加密货币'). However, it omits other important aspects such as return format, potential multiple matches, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but has notable 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and limitation in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope (no crypto), and usage tradeoffs (slow, use other tools when code known). It lacks an explicit description of what the tool returns, but the title and purpose imply it returns stock codes, making it sufficiently complete.

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 100% because both 'keyword' and 'market' have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning; it reinforces the use of 'keyword' as a lookup mechanism but does not introduce new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: '根据股票名称、公司名称等关键词查找股票代码' (Search for stock codes based on keywords such as stock names, company names). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on code lookup rather than retrieving data like prices or news.

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 explicitly advises when not to use this tool: '当你知道股票代码或用户已指定股票代码时，建议直接通过股票代码使用其他工具' (when you know the code, use other tools directly). This provides clear exclusion and an alternative, while also implying when it should be used (when only a name or keyword is available).

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