Find a symbol's code by name

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses matching behavior, the important scope constraint that results come only from the plan's history, the ordering (most mentioned first), the returned fields (id, name, kind), and the two edge cases — empty list means no match, list length equal to limit may mean more behind it.

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 core action and the name-vs-brand rule are front-loaded, followed by return shape and edge cases in a compact block. No sentence is redundant, and the truncation and empty-list semantics are packed economically into one clause.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what comes back, result ordering, the coverage limitation (plan history), and both boundary cases. An agent can call it and interpret the response without further information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic meaning: the query matches codes and registered names and should be the company's own name, and a result count equal to limit signals possible truncation. Limit's default/max stay in the 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?

States a specific verb ('look up the code') and resource (company, index, currency, commodity, organisation), with a concrete example ('micron' finds MU). It is clearly distinguishable from get_symbol, which takes a code rather than resolving one, and the last sentence directs the agent to pass the returned code into the other 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?

Gives real usage guidance: search by the company's registered name, not a brand (Alphabet, not Google), and query against codes or names. It also implies the resolve-then-call pattern for the sibling tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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