search_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states case-insensitive matching on name/ticker/sector and a limit range (1-50), but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a search tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise, using a clear 'Args' format with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics well. It lacks return value details, but for a search tool, the implied result list is reasonable. Slightly more context on expected output would elevate completeness.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: query (case-insensitive match on name/ticker/sector) and limit (max results 1-50). This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema.

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 'Search stocks in smallcase's public universe', specifying the verb (search) and resource (stocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_smallcases and search_mutual_funds.

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 provides examples ('HDFC', 'bank') and mentions case-insensitive matching, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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