stock_info_bj_name_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas DataFrame) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, data freshness, or rate limits. This is acceptable baseline given the 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 three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the source URL and return type. Every line adds practical value—the source URL aids verification, and the return type tells the agent what to expect—without any filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (stock list), in what format (pandas DataFrame), and the source URL. However, the function name implies the list contains names and codes, which is not explicitly stated in the description. This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description is not required to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies per the rubric.

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 '北京证券交易所-股票列表' (Beijing Stock Exchange stock list), identifying both the specific resource and the operation. The URL provides the data source, and the exchange name distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_info_sh_name_code and stock_info_sz_name_code.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context beyond the raw fact that it returns a stock list. With many sibling stock-info tools, explicit use-case guidance would be valuable but is absent.

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