search_instruments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the narrow scope of 'tradable instruments' and the accepted search keys, but it does not disclose behavior such as result limits, fuzzy vs. exact matching, or whether multiple matches are returned.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the most important information (what is searched and how) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations are present, and the schema carries parameter names and enum values. However, the description omits return format/pagination and the surprising asset_type default, so an agent has enough to call the tool but not enough to reliably interpret or constrain results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that query can be a name, ticker, or ISIN, but it says nothing about asset_type, including the fact that it defaults to 'stock' and would silently restrict a search for bonds or crypto unless explicitly changed.

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 and resource: 'Search tradable instruments' by name, ticker or ISIN. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_quote or get_portfolio, but it never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts itself with get_instrument, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_instrument, get_stock_details, or get_quote. It is only a bare action statement; no prerequisites, use-cases, or exclusions are given.

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