symbol_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and a limitation about relying on the TradingView search backend. That is real added value, but the limitation is vague and there is no disclosure of result ordering, match behavior, or what the response contains for an operation with no output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, with labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS sections that are easy to scan. Every line roughly earns its place, though the labeled structure is a bit formulaic for a two-parameter search.

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 low-complexity 2-parameter read operation, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and a limitation. The main gap is the absence of any indication of what the results look like, which matters slightly given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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%, with both query and type parameters documented and exemplified in the schema itself. The description's inline examples duplicate rather than extend that documentation, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search TradingView database for symbols, exchanges, and financial instruments matching a keyword query.' This is clear and actionable. However, it never references the sibling tool symbol_info, which is the obvious adjacent choice, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation between searching and looking up symbol details.

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 'WHEN TO USE' clause gives concrete conditions: resolving ambiguous ticker names or locating the exact exchange ticker, with examples ('crude oil', 'ES'). It lacks any when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g., symbol_info for known tickers), so it clears the context bar but stops short of routing.

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