search_instruments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses case-insensitive matching, that the master list is tens of thousands of rows so results are capped, and that the endpoint is free on all Kite Connect tiers. It stops short of stating the actual cap/default limit or the authentication requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and matching semantics, then purpose, then the practical narrowing advice. Nothing is redundant; every sentence adds information.

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?

Covers what the tool returns conceptually (instrument_token / tradingsymbol), why results may be truncated, and how to narrow. With no output schema, a brief note on returned fields or the result cap value would make it fully complete, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 75% and documents query, exchange and instrument_type well; the description reinforces exchange/query as the narrowing levers and explains why (capped results). The limit parameter has no description in either place, which is the only semantic gap.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (instrument master list) with the matching mode (symbol or name substring, case-insensitive). It does not explicitly name the sibling search_mf_instruments, so an agent must infer that mutual funds are handled elsewhere, but the scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to obtain instrument_token / exact tradingsymbol values for quote, historical-data and tick-watching tools, which gives clear downstream context. It also advises narrowing with exchange and query. The only gap is not naming search_mf_instruments as the alternative for fund instruments.

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