gangtise_securities_search

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 the return type (matching securities and GTS codes) but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or any destructive behavior (none expected). The description is minimal for behavioral context.

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-loaded with the core action ('按关键词搜索证券'), and efficiently covers the key supported features. No waste.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only vaguely states '返回匹配证券及其 GTS 代码'. Missing details on response structure (fields, pagination), but given the tool's simplicity, it is marginally adequate. Sibling tools with similar descriptions indicate this is typical.

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%, and the description largely repeats the schema descriptions (e.g., keyword accepts name/code/pinyin, category filters, top limits results). It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 searches for securities by keyword, supports multiple formats (Chinese name, code, pinyin, English), and returns matching securities with GTS codes. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like gangtise_lookup or gangtise_edb_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 usage for searching securities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., gangtise_lookup for exact matches, gangtise_edb_search for economic data). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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