获取公司概况

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，覆盖了安全行为；描述额外补充了返回内容的具体字段，如公司名称、法人、注册资本、主营业务等，这些信息不在参数schema中，增加了行为透明度。

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?

用一句话完整说明工具用途和返回内容，信息前置，无冗余措辞，结构紧凑有效。

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?

工具只有一个参数且schema完整，输出schema已存在，注解覆盖安全性，描述又补充了返回字段。对于一个查询型工具，当前描述已经足够让代理正确调用，没有明显缺失。

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 描述覆盖率为100%，symbol 参数已给出含义和示例（SH600519、SZ000001），描述本身没有额外参数语义。按高覆盖率基线评为3分，无需扣分。

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?

描述明确说明该工具用于获取A股上市公司的基本信息，并列举了具体字段（公司名称、法人、注册资本、主营业务、经营范围等），动词+资源清晰。与兄弟工具如 get_stock_quote、get_user_profile 的资源类型明显区分，不存在混淆。

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?

描述提供了明确的使用情境：当需要A股上市公司的基础资料时使用。虽然没有显式写出“何时不用”或备选工具，但上下文足够清晰，且没有与任何兄弟工具产生功能重叠。

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