resolve_stock_code

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

It transparently notes that output is written to a file (file_path) and describes the matching logic, including empty candidate cases. It does not mention any destructive side effects, but the file writing is a clear side effect.

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 but mixes English and Chinese, which may reduce clarity for some readers. The structure is a bit disjointed with multiple clauses, but it remains brief and does not include unnecessary fluff.

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?

It covers the main aspects: input, output location and format, matching behavior, and a follow-up step. It does not specify error handling or edge cases beyond the non-listed issuer scenario, but for the tool's simplicity, it is fairly 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that keyword can be an abbreviation or full name, details the exact matching rules (abbreviation exact, full name substring), and clarifies the output content. This goes well beyond the basic 'Stock name or keyword' and 'Output CSV file path' in the schema.

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: resolving an A-share stock code from a company name. It also mentions the output format (CSV) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_stock which fetch market data.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use it (for resolving codes by abbreviation or full name) and even suggests a follow-up action (calling query_stock when multiple candidates exist). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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