Resolve a company name to a symbol

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

The description mentions a key behavioral trait (multiple candidates when 'exact' is false), but the input schema does not include an 'exact' parameter, and additionalProperties is false. This references a non-existent parameter, which is misleading. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with 'Finds', but the description does not disclose return format or behavior when no match is found.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and an example, followed by a critical behavioral note. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, example, and ambiguity handling. But it references a parameter ('exact') not present in the schema, and gives no guidance for unmatched queries or error cases. This makes it incomplete and potentially confusing for an agent relying on the description.

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 fully describes the single 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds a practical example mapping '삼성전자' to 005930, reinforcing schema semantics. However, the mention of 'exact' could imply an undocumented parameter, which slightly detracts.

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 a specific action: 'Finds the Toss Securities symbol for a company name or ticker' with a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_get_price or toss_get_orderbook, which focus on market data or order management, not symbol resolution.

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 when to use it: whenever a symbol is needed from a company name/ticker. It also gives behavioral guidance for ambiguous matches ('ask the user which one instead of picking one yourself'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. Since no sibling tool does symbol resolution, the usage context is clear.

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