search_markets

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 action ('Search') without revealing whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a list, whether pagination applies, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function. There is no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise and efficiently front-loaded.

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 search tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally acceptable but lacks any additional context. It does not mention the return format, read-only nature, or how this search relates to other market-related tools, making it feel incomplete in a broader workflow.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description partially compensates by specifying that the search_term is used for matching by name or keyword. However, it does not explain the matching logic, case sensitivity, or result scope, leaving some ambiguity about the parameter's exact behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('IG markets') and an explicit qualifier ('by name or keyword'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'market_details' or 'historical_prices', which serve different purposes.

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 that the tool is used when you need to find markets by name or keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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