Search Alpaca Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds the limitation that it is not for exact API lookup, but contributes no additional behavioral context such as return shape, pagination, or rate limits. With output schema present, the gap is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences carry the core purpose, the usage context, the read-only nature, and an explicit exclusion with alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary action 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?

For a single-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and sibling alternative completely. An agent has enough context to decide when to select this tool and what kind of query to supply.

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%, and the only parameter is 'query' with no schema-level documentation. The description implies that query is a natural-language conceptual/product question, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or expectations. The one-parameter context and the tool's search intent make this minimally sufficient.

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: searching Alpaca documentation pages and guides, scoped to conceptual/product questions about setup, account rules, funding, trading, market data, events, or FAQs. It clearly distinguishes this from exact API method/path lookup by naming search_alpaca_api_specs as the alternative.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool — conceptual or product questions — and when not to: exact API method/path lookup. It names the preferred sibling tool for endpoint, parameter, or schema questions, so an agent has clear routing guidance.

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