search_tickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context; it does so by disclosing the coverage universe and explicitly disclaiming price/metric data, which prevents misuse. It stops short of saying what a match record contains or how ambiguous matches are ordered, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: capability and scale, filter support, then usage and exclusion. The routing constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 four-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers scope, filters and misuse boundaries, and the mention of 'matching instruments' implies a list return. It does not describe what fields a match carries, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples and the 1-50 limit range. The description only restates that asset_class, exchange and limit are optional filters and adds the 'name or ticker prefix' notion already present in the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource (symbol/instrument directory search) plus scope (66,400+ global equities, ETFs, FX, indices, crypto), and explicitly separates itself from per-ticker tools that fetch prices or metrics. An agent can distinguish it from get_quote or analyze_ticker without opening any schema.

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 prescribes when to use it ('resolve unknown ticker symbols before calling per-ticker tools') and when not to ('does not fetch live prices or financial metrics'), naming the boundary against sibling tools. Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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