indicator_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: a control query is run first, and an empty result is only trustworthy when verified_empty is present; otherwise zero results should be treated as unknown. This is valuable beyond what the schema or annotations could convey, though it does not detail the full result structure.

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 first sentence is compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is longer but earns its place by explaining a critical failure mode. It is slightly verbose but contains no filler.

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 is strong on the empty-result caveat and the schema covers both parameters, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the successful result structure looks like. An agent would need to infer how to consume results for downstream actions like indicator_add_from_search. The core behavior is described, but return-shape details are missing.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully (query and limit with descriptions, min, max, default). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('TradingView built-in, community, strategy, and saved-script studies'). It differentiates from sibling tools like indicator_add_from_search and symbol_search by specifying the exact domain and scope of the search.

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 tool is for searching TradingView studies and gives important guidance on interpreting empty results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like indicator_add_from_search or when not to use it. The empty-result caveat is behavioral guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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