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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about global coverage and specific return fields, enhancing transparency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words; every sentence provides substantive information: first on action and scale, second on filters and return fields.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers functionality, filters, return fields, and coverage scope. It is complete for a read-only search tool.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces that 'query' is for company name/ticker and that 'exchange_code' and 'security_type' are filters, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches over 300M+ financial instruments by name/ticker, with filters for exchange and security type, and specifies return fields (Bloomberg FIGI, ticker, name, market sector) and coverage (equities, ETPs, bonds, derivatives globally). It distinguishes from sibling tools like figi.finance.filter and figi.finance.map.

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 for searching instruments by name/ticker and filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like figi.finance.filter or figi.finance.map. No direct comparison or exclusion guidance is provided.

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