search_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (List of TradeableInstrument objects) and behavior (all instruments if no search term), but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences with a clear docstring format. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter details, and return behavior. No wasted words.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameter and return value. Minor missing details like error handling or pagination, but acceptable for a simple fetch tool.

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 fully explains the parameter: it's a search term for filtering by ticker or name, case-insensitive. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only has a default and type.

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 'Fetch instruments, optionally filtered by ticker or name,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_exchange (which searches exchanges) and other fetch tools.

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: when you need to find instruments by ticker or name. It mentions case-insensitivity and optional filtering, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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