indicator_add_from_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., no match found), whether the indicator is added to the active chart, or any authentication requirements. The mention of types (built-in, strategy, community, saved) adds context, but important behavioral details are absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the target. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. No filler 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?

For a relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks specifics about what happens after adding (e.g., does it open the dialog, require a chart), how the 'match' parameter interacts with 'query', or the behavior when multiple matches exist. These gaps are notable, but the description is adequate for a basic use case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'matching' and result types, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents query, match, and section with clear descriptions, so the description neither enhances nor compensates for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the TradingView Indicators dialog and add a matching built-in, strategy, community, or saved study'. It specifies the action (search and add), the resource (TradingView Indicators dialog), and the scope (built-in, strategy, community, saved study), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like indicator_search (search only) and chart_manage_indicator (manage added indicators).

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 implies the use case: adding an indicator by searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like indicator_search (which only searches without adding) or chart_manage_indicator (manages existing indicators). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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