Code Verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that name input fails gracefully (ok=false + a web-search template), refuses to guess codes, and states the rationale ('猜错代码=张冠李戴，比没有更糟'). It omits auth/rate-limit/latency details, but the failure-mode behavior is unusually explicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core mapping and organized into input-behavior and output-contract segments. There is mild duplication between the '返回官方简称' line and the later '输出契约' line, but overall it is dense and earns its length.

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?

Covers inputs, success/failure outcomes, and the fallback path, which is sufficient for a one-parameter verification tool with an output schema. Missing only minor details (e.g., input normalization/whitespace handling), so it is near-complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (the single 'keyword' param is just typed as string), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the two accepted forms (6-digit code vs. Chinese short name) and the divergent behavior each triggers. Only edge cases like partial/malformed input are left undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '新闻提及公司 → 股票代码核对' (verify a stock code against its official short name). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like quote/market_snapshot by being a verification/lookup tool, not a market data tool, and even names the corresponding skill (laogu-news).

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?

Gives explicit context for use (news mentions a company, need to confirm the ticker) and a clear when-not: for a Chinese short name there is no stable programmatic 'name→code' interface, so it honestly returns ok=false rather than guessing. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the usage boundary is well drawn.

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