qt_lookup_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'search', without covering prefix matching semantics, case sensitivity, number of matches, or data source. It is not misleading, but it is seriously under-informative.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It leaves out essential semantic content that the tool name does not supply.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least state what the prefix means and what a successful lookup returns. It does neither, so an agent lacks enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema provides only a string type and no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description never explicitly explains that 'prefix' is the text used to search, though the parameter name makes that inference easy. This is minimal added meaning.

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 names a concrete action and object ('search for a stock symbol ID'), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, it is close to a restatement of the tool name and does not clarify what kind of result is returned or how it differs from sibling symbol-related 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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives like qt_compare_symbols or qt_get_quotes. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must guess from the name.

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