symbol_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 only states the function 'search' without mentioning return format, result limits, case sensitivity, wildcard behavior, or whether the search covers all symbol types. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 succinct sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and efficient, though somewhat sparse for a tool with two parameters and no output schema.

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 tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description should explain what the search returns and any constraints (e.g., supported symbol types, result ordering). This information is missing, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by name or keyword' which maps to the query parameter, but it does not clarify the type parameter's role beyond the schema's existing explanation. Baseline 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 clearly states the action (search) and the resource (symbols) with a specified method (by name or keyword). It is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like symbol_info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other search-related tools like indicator_search or tv_discover. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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