Search instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mapping behavior and the prerequisite relationship to quote lookups, but omits detail about ambiguity handling, pagination, limit behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but leaves behavioral 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 core purpose and an illustrative example. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, when to call the tool, and the key return concepts (security_id, scrip code). With no output schema, it could more fully describe the return format or multiple-match behavior, but for a simple search tool the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in the intended workflow.

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 67%: query and exchange have descriptions, while limit does not. The description adds helpful examples for query ('RELIANCE', 'HDFC Bank') but does not explain limit or exchange beyond what the schema already states. It provides moderate added value over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly states the resource (human symbol or company name) and the output (numeric security_id and scrip code). It is distinct from siblings like search_mutual_funds and get_quotes because it focuses on resolving instruments to API-required identifiers.

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 instruction 'Call this before any quote lookup' gives clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools like search_mutual_funds, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully comprehensive.

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