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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a search and uses the FMP Exchange Variants API, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, response structure, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a brief user-benefit statement. Every sentence contributes value with no waste or redundancy.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and expected result (a list of exchanges). It could mention more about return format or limitations, but for a simple search tool, the current level is 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 100% for the single 'symbol' parameter, which the schema describes as 'The stock symbol to search for exchange variants.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool searches across multiple public exchanges to find where a given stock symbol is listed, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like searchSymbol or searchCompaniesBySymbol by focusing on exchange variants. The verb 'search' and resource 'FMP Exchange Variants API' are specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'identify all the exchanges where a security is actively traded.' This gives context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. However, the specificity makes the appropriate situation obvious, so no strong deduction.

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