search_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning fuzzy search across code, name, and pinyin, but it does not disclose return format, result limits, or any operational nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately conveys the key capabilities. No wasted words.

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 simple search tool with one well-described parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is searched and the supported matching modes. Minor omissions like result count or ordering prevent a 5.

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 100% because the parameter keyword includes a description with examples. The tool description reinforces the search scope but does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches A-share stocks with a specific verb and resource, and specifies supported search methods (code, name, pinyin fuzzy search). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_realtime_quote or get_kline.

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 context of use is implied: it is a search tool to find stocks before retrieving quotes or other data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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