Search ticker symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the search covers equities, ETFs, and indices across global exchanges, may return multiple listings for the same company, and advises preferring the listing whose exchange matches the market. This helps the agent interpret results correctly. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, scope/ambiguity handling, and an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet comprehensive for a search tool.

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 search/lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (name → symbol → pass to quote/history), scope (global equities/ETFs/indices), ambiguity handling (multiple listings, exchange preference), and an alternative path (SEC filings). It does not detail the return format, but the purpose implies the response includes ticker symbols, and the 'may return several listings' comment hints at array-like output. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both query and limit, with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('Apple' → AAPL) and mentions that the search covers global exchanges, but these do not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. The guidance about preferring exchange matches relates to result interpretation, not parameter syntax.

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 action: 'Resolve a company or fund name to a ticker symbol using Yahoo Finance search.' It specifies the resource (company/fund names), the output (ticker symbol), and the method (Yahoo Finance search). It also differentiates from siblings by instructing to call this first when you have a name rather than a symbol, and by noting that get_sec_filings accepts a name directly without needing this lookup.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this first whenever you have a name rather than a symbol' and then pass the symbol to get_stock_quote or get_price_history. It also gives an exclusion/alternative: for US companies needing SEC data, get_sec_filings accepts a company name directly. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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