search_symbol

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (insCode + market) and implies a read-only search, but it omits details like result count limits, exact result format, or behavior on no-match. Acceptable for a benign search tool, but thin given zero annotation support.

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 that packs purpose, query format, examples, and return value with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to pass, in what languages, and what comes back. The only gap is the exact shape of the returned insCode/market payload, which a live tool response would reveal.

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% (schema only specifies a string with length constraints), so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'query' accepts Persian/English symbols or names and gives real examples ('فملی', 'خودرو', 'farda'), adding meaning well beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('TSETMC instrument'), and the query scope (Persian/English symbol or name) with concrete examples. It also states the return payload (insCode + market), making the tool's role unambiguous against siblings like get_quote or get_order_book.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: returning insCode signals this is a lookup step before quote/order-book calls, but the description never names a sibling alternative or states when NOT to use it. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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