resolve_symbol

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that delisted names are included and flagged with delist_date, that a wrong suffix silently yields an empty result instead of an error, and that multiple rows signal an ambiguous fragment. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially change how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding: example, precondition/consequence, then return shape and ambiguity handling. The most actionable constraint (resolve before querying) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description still covers what comes back (canonical symbol, name, delist_date) and how to interpret multi-row results. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds accepted-form examples and clarifies that the match returns the canonical suffixed symbol for later calls. The `limit` parameter is left to the schema, which documents it thoroughly.

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 ('Look up a symbol') and immediately grounds it with concrete examples ('茅台', 'maotai', '600519' → 600519.SH). An agent can distinguish this resolver from sibling query tools (query_bars, run_sql) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Do this before any query when the user named a company rather than a code') and why ('a guessed suffix returns an empty result rather than an error'). It also handles the ambiguous-fragment case, instructing the agent to pick by name before querying.

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