get_stock_basic_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (Baostock) and optional field selection, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides detailed parameter documentation in a readable format, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It doesn't describe the return structure beyond 'basic stock information in the requested format,' which is insufficient given the lack of output schema. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of tool behavior.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains the 'code' parameter format (Baostock format with examples), details the 'fields' parameter behavior (optional list, default returns all columns, with examples), and mentions the return format. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Fetches basic information for a given Chinese A-share stock.' It specifies the resource (stock) and action (fetch basic info), distinguishing it from siblings like get_historical_k_data or get_balance_data which fetch different data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_stock_industry or get_stock_analysis which might overlap in scope.

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 implies usage through the context of fetching 'basic information' for stocks, suggesting it's for fundamental data rather than price or technical analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_industry or get_fina_indicator, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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