search_scrip

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

The description discloses that it returns symbol tokens, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any search semantics like partial matches, case sensitivity, or rate limits. With only openWorldHint annotation (which is vague), the description carries the transparency burden, and while adequate, it could provide more behavior detail.

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 conveys the purpose and key output. No filler words or redundant phrases. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the search field (name), and the output (symbol tokens). It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, given the schema provides parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both exchange and searchscrip. The description adds the context that the search is 'by name' and that results are symbol tokens, but these don't deeply enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'trading instruments by name'. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the search action is distinct from get_ltp, get_candle_data, etc., which are retrieval tools. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning the tool returns instrument tokens, which it does.

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?

The phrase 'Returns symbol tokens needed for other tools' implies use when you need tokens for downstream calls, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Context is clear but not exhaustive.

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