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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('~1,900 assets') and the loose-reference resolution behavior, but it does not disclose result format, match semantics, or no-result behavior.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and follow with a clear usage instruction. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only search, the description is largely complete: it gives query meaning, scope, and a usage trigger. It lacks any hint about return shape or behavior on no matches, and since no output schema exists, that small gap remains.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the main query parameter by saying it searches by symbol or name. The optional limit parameter receives no additional semantic explanation beyond its schema title and default, so coverage is only partial.

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 action and resource: search the whole asset universe by symbol or name. It also frames the tool as a resolver for loose references, which distinguishes it from retrieval tools like get_asset and ticker-specific tools among the siblings.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before calling the other tools when a user reference is loose, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow context is strong.

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