search_stock

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the search action and criteria, but nothing about result format, pagination, ranking, or potential limitations. This is minimal and not contradictory, but insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no excess words. It communicates the essential purpose clearly and efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 is too sparse. It does not indicate whether the response is a list or single match, how results are ranked, or how this tool fits into a broker interaction workflow. This is a minimal viable description but not complete enough for confident use.

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 50%: only 'query' has a description, while 'broker' has none. The tool description does not explain the broker parameter or when/how to use it. 'By name or symbol' merely restates the query description, adding no new semantic value.

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 the tool's function: 'Search for a stock or mutual fund by name or symbol.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (stock or mutual fund), and differentiates from siblings like get_quote or get_holdings by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to search vs. directly fetching a quote or holdings, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the term 'search'.

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