stock_info_sz_name_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds a source URL and states the return type is a pandas DataFrame, but does not detail rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits. There is a minor inconsistency referring to 'indicator' instead of 'symbol'.

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 compact and follows a docstring format with URL, parameter, type, and return lines. However, it contains a terminology inconsistency and the sentence structure is somewhat repetitive, making it less polished than ideal. Despite these issues, it remains brief and generally understandable.

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?

With no output schema, the description only specifies the return type (DataFrame) and the source, but does not describe columns or row scope. For a simple stock list tool where the symbol category determines the content, this is adequate, but it leaves the agent guessing about the exact data structure. The inclusion of a source URL adds some context.

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 schema provides a single symbol parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by enumerating the allowed values (A股列表, B股列表, CDR列表, AB股列表) and indicating a default, which is actionable for the agent. The return line's reference to 'indicator' is slightly confusing, but the parameter choices are clear.

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 tool as a Shenzhen Stock Exchange stock list with a source URL and specific symbol categories (A股列表, B股列表, CDR列表, AB股列表). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_info_sh_name_code by focusing on the Shenzhen exchange, though the action verb is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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 implies usage by naming the exchange and the parameter choices, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios best suited for this tool or comparisons to similar list tools.

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