search_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses fuzzy matching across name, code, and pinyin initials, plus accepted keyword formats, but does not state safety traits such as read-only behavior, rate limits, or result-size constraints.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with the core search action before listing keyword semantics. The Args note adds needed parameter detail rather than repeating schema fields, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the keyword argument. It could be stronger by connecting this discovery tool to sibling retrieval calls, but the invocation context is otherwise 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it defines keyword as the search term and gives concrete examples ('茅台', '600519', 'PAYH'), including an explanation of pinyin-initial matching. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '按关键字搜索 A 股股票' (search A-share stocks by keyword). It also clarifies the search scope with fuzzy matching by name, code, and pinyin initials, which clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_stock_quote and get_stock_history.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as get_stock_quote or get_stock_fundamentals. No when-not conditions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context to inference.

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