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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behaviors: a max of 100 results and that unknown symbols are dropped or cause INSUFFICIENT_DATA. It omits auth requirements, match semantics, and truncation behavior when more than 100 match.

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 tight sentences with the result cap parenthesized and the usage hook front-loaded. No filler, though the em-dash clause is slightly compressed for the consequence it describes.

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 single-param lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the invocation trigger and the failure consequence but leaves the input semantics and return shape undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'query' at all — no match mode (substring/prefix/exact), no case sensitivity, no behavior for an empty query. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Search') and resource ('supported asset universe') with the result cap. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_analysis_result or run_risk_analysis.

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?

'Preflight inline-portfolio symbols here' gives a concrete when-to-use context tied to downstream valuation. It stops short of enumerating alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended moment of invocation is unmistakable.

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