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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about searching by name or symbol and the disambiguation use case, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as result shape or match semantics. No contradiction 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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is delivered economically in the second sentence. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description is largely sufficient: it defines what is searched, when to use it, and the schema covers constraints. The main gap is the lack of any detail about the returned instrument fields, especially since there is no output schema, but this is minor for the tool's stated purpose.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that the query parameter accepts a company name or symbol. However, it does not clarify the limit parameter's behavior or result shape beyond what the schema's default/constraints already convey, leaving a partial 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?

States a specific action ('Find tradable instruments by company name or symbol') and a clear resource. The second sentence, 'Use this before another market tool when a ticker is ambiguous,' positions it against sibling market tools, so an agent can distinguish it from tools like market.quotes or market.history.

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?

Gives explicit context: use this when a ticker is ambiguous and before another market tool. This is strong guidance, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative or state explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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