get_stock_basic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (code, code_name, ipoDate, etc.) and the behavior of empty parameters, which adds value. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence serves a function: purpose, parameter usage, and output fields. 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, parameter options, and return fields. It does not address pagination or limits, but the tool's scope is narrow enough that this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining that 'code' expects format like 'sh.600519' and 'code_name' is Chinese name, and clarifies both are optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states tool retrieves basic securities profile, specifies input options (code or code_name), and explains behavior when both empty. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_stock or get_stock_industry, though the purpose is distinct.

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?

Description indicates when to pass each parameter and that empty parameters return all securities, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_all_stock for full list). Usage is 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.