个股实体解析：将日常对话中个股简称、别称，解析为标准的股票代码、名称、交易市场（SH：沪市；SZ：深市；BJ：京市；NQ：新三板；US：美股；HK：港股）。

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the transformation behavior (parsing abbreviations to standardized formats) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens with unrecognized inputs), performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes all essential information. Every element (what it does, what it accepts, what it returns) earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (natural language parsing), 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the transformation purpose and output format. However, it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases or limitations given the parsing nature.

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 100% (the single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as '含A股股票名称或代码的自然语言问句'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for coverage gaps.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for parsing stock abbreviations/aliases from everyday conversation into standardized formats. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on stocks (not funds or other entities), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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