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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the search is exact-match or fuzzy, whether results are limited, or any pagination/ordering behavior. With zero extra value, a 2 is appropriate.

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 succinct but under-specified. It is not a properly sized description because it omits essential information that the agent needs. Being short for the sake of brevity is not valuable here; the single sentence does not earn its place.

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?

With 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and a description that only says 'Symbol search.', the tool is severely underdocumented. The agent has no idea what inputs mean, what to expect as output, or how to interpret results. Given the richness of sibling financial tools, this description is wholly inadequate.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The schema lists 'query', 'limit', and 'exchange' with no descriptions, and the overall description 'Symbol search.' provides no semantic meaning for these fields. This is a critical gap.

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 'Symbol search.' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'Search Symbol'. It does not specify what symbols are searched (e.g., stock tickers, crypto), what the search returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like search_name or quote.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_name, search_within, entity_profile, and quote, there is no indication of which scenarios call for search_symbol.

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