gangtise_stock_pool_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior (returns all pools' stocks if parameter omitted), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 (one sentence plus a system date note) and directly states the tool's purpose. The date context prefixed is somewhat extraneous for the tool itself, but the core message is clear and efficiently delivered.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required fields, no output schema), the description is adequately complete: it specifies the action, the resource, and the default behavior. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable because there is no output schema to supplement.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (only one parameter, poolIdList, with a detailed schema description including default). The description restates the default behavior but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询指定自选股池中的证券列表' (query securities list in specified watchlist pool), which identifies a specific verb (查询/query), resource (自选股池中的证券列表/securities in stock pool), and distinguishes from sibling gangtise_stock_pool_list (which lists pools, not stocks).

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 explains default behavior when poolIdList is omitted ('不传 poolIdList 时默认返回所有池的股票'), implying when to use the parameter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer.

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