get_hk_stock_basic_info

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 mentions the return format ('Markdown格式的基本信息表格' - Markdown-formatted basic info table), which is useful. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'basic information' entails beyond the example. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise and structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Each sentence adds value: the title states the purpose, and the parameter and return explanations are necessary. There's no fluff, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return format into the opening sentence.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and return format adequately, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits) and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values more thoroughly. It's minimal but not entirely inadequate.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'code' as a Hong Kong stock code with an example ('hk.00700' for Tencent) and clarifies 'fields' as an optional list of fields. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail possible field values or formats.

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 purpose: '获取港股基本信息' (Get Hong Kong stock basic information). It specifies the resource (Hong Kong stocks) and verb (get basic information), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_basic_info' or 'get_us_stock_basic_info', which target different markets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_stock_basic_info' (for other markets) or 'get_hk_stock_realtime_data' (for real-time vs. basic info), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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