nt_search_instruments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result limit (up to 50 matches) and the data source, but does not mention case sensitivity, partial match behavior, or any connection requirements. It provides some useful context but omits specific behavioral traits that could affect how an agent uses the tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource, then adds the search criteria and a constraint. There is no redundant or filler content; 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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meaning, and result expectation. However, it does not explain how the returned matches can be used with other tools (e.g., converting an instrument identifier for nt_quote or nt_historical_bars), which is a minor context gap.

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 has one parameter 'query' with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that 'query' is the name or symbol to search for. This directly explains the parameter's meaning, though it could add details like whether wildcards are supported.

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 'Search for instruments' with specific criteria 'by name or symbol' and the data source 'NT8 instrument database'. It also specifies a result limit of 50 matches, which helps distinguish it from related tools like nt_instrument_info that likely retrieve details for a known instrument.

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 description implies this tool is used when you need to find instruments by name or symbol, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be used when you don't already have an instrument identifier, unlike sibling tools like nt_instrument_info.

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