get_us_stock_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, plus the intended downstream use of the symbol. This goes beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats the return content in the first line and the ':return:' line, and includes a URL that is not essential. The structure is slightly repetitive and not tightly organized.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description states the output fields and type, but it does not clarify that the tool returns data for all US stocks (since there are no input params). This ambiguity about scope is a gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% description coverage (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4; no parameter explanation is required or provided.

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 identifies the resource (US stocks) and the output fields (English name, Chinese name, symbol). It distinguishes itself from sibling price-focused tools by focusing on name/symbol mapping. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 offers a usage hint: 'you should use symbol to get apply into the next function', indicating the symbol's role in subsequent calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is partial.

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