stock_zh_ah_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return content but introduces an internal contradiction: :return: says '字典' (dict) while :rtype: states pandas.DataFrame, and it does not clarify the actual structure or columns.

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, containing a title, source URL, and return docs in a few lines. However, the return-type inconsistency and lack of clean organization prevent it from being exceptionally well-structured.

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 tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and return shape, but the dict/DataFrame conflict and absence of details about key/value structure leave ambiguity. No output schema exists, so the description must carry the full burden, which it only partially meets.

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, so the schema already captures everything needed. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, as the description is not required to explain parameter semantics.

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 it returns a dictionary of stock codes and names for Tencent Finance HK AH stocks, supported by a source URL. The title and return description distinctly identify it as a name lookup tool, differentiating it from siblings like stock_zh_ah_daily and stock_zh_ah_spot.

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 use when needing the AH stock name mapping via its :return: statement, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving context implied rather than stated.

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