stock_a_code_to_symbol

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 established. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the basic function; it does not disclose input validation, error handling, or return value specifics.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first line and docstring-style parameter/return notes. However, the parameter type line duplicates schema information and adds minimal value, and the overall format is not optimized for quick scanning.

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 simple code-to-market lookup, the description covers basic input and output, but the return value ('股票市场') is vague, with no mention of possible market names or whether indices are supported. Without an output schema, this is a significant gap, as agents cannot predict the exact response.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the docstring compensates by defining 'symbol' as a stock code (股票代码) of type str. This adds meaning over the bare schema, but it omits accepted code formats, market prefix conventions, and how the default '000300' is interpreted.

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 function: '输入股票代码判断股票市场' (input stock code to determine stock market), which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that also process stock codes, such as stock_info_a_code_name.

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 lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving an agent without context for selecting it among the many stock-related tools.

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