search_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Returns JSON,' disclosing neither the result shape, pagination, rate limits, nor behavior when no match is found — near-zero behavioral value for a search operation.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose and workflow context front-loaded, zero filler or repetition beyond what is needed.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape and no-match behavior, but only offers 'Returns JSON.' Parameter coverage is fine via the schema, so it is adequate but with a clear gap in return semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit' including the default of 10. The description merely restates 'company name or symbol' and adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (searches) and resource (stocks) plus the search keys (company name or symbol). This implicitly separates it from the get_* ticker-based siblings, though it never names one of them explicitly.

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?

Gives clear situational context: 'Use to find ticker symbols before calling other tools,' which tells the agent this is a lookup step in a workflow. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., list_screeners or get_trending for discovery), so it stops short of a 5.

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