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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful scope constraint (no prices or candles in results), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what the search matches against.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The only weak element is the opaque 'as Premiss' reference, which spends words without adding clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a search tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema, the description should have clarified query matching and result scope; the price/candle exclusion is a good start but not sufficient.

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 0% for all three parameters, and the description adds nothing about them. It never explains what 'query' matches (symbol, name, substring), why 'limit' is required despite a default of 20, or how 'asset_class' narrows the directory — leaving the agent to guess at the primary input semantics.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (crypto, stock and ETF market directory), so the agent knows it discovers instruments rather than fetching data. However, the phrase 'the same directory as Premiss' references an external product name that carries no meaning on its own, and no sibling (e.g. describe_market) is named for contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied through the negative scope statement 'Does not return prices or candles', which hints that price data belongs to another tool such as describe_market, but no alternative is named and no positive condition ('use this when you need to resolve a symbol') is given.

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