search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals substring matching ('by part of the name'). It says nothing about case sensitivity, whether results are ranked, how matches are returned, or the effect of the default limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching scope comes first and the examples are compact and immediately illustrative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify what is returned (names, IDs, full symbol records) and how it differs from get_symbol_info. It leaves the return shape and the semantics of limit unspecified.

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 usefully disambiguates 'query' as a partial symbol-name fragment with concrete examples ('EUR', 'XAU', 'USD'), but leaves the 'limit' parameter (default 50) entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 (broker symbols) plus the matching mode ('by part of the name'), which tells an agent this returns a filtered list rather than a single record. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_symbol_info, which is the nearest competing lookup tool.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_symbol_info, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The query examples hint at usage but the agent must infer when a substring search is preferable to a direct symbol lookup.

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