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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-open-world behavior, so the bar is low, yet the description adds real substance: ranking rules (listed first, exact > prefix > word > contains, size tiebreak), post-rename alias matching with concrete examples, and typo tolerance only for 4+ character queries. It omits result-shape or pagination/limit interaction details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying non-redundant information: scope and query types first, then alias behavior, then ranking, then the downstream hand-off on `symbol`. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what can be searched, how ordering works, how fuzzy matching is bounded, and how to use the results. Nothing essential 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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes beyond the schema by disclosing that queries of 4+ characters tolerate typos and by defining what `symbol` in the response means for downstream calls. Sector/industry filter behavior is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search ~8,000 Indian stocks') and enumerates the accepted key types (name, symbol, BSE code, ISIN, brand/alias names). It is clearly the lookup entry point, distinguishable from screen_stocks (metric filters) and resolve_identifier_asof (point-in-time identifiers).

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 tells the agent that each result's `symbol` is the input other per-stock tools expect, which establishes this as the lookup step before quote/profile calls. It does not, however, say when to prefer screen_stocks or the identifier-resolution tools instead of free-text search.

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