Search instruments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing the return content (tickers and Thndr asset ids) and multilingual query support. It stops short of noting pagination or result-count behavior tied to limit.

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 tight sentences, each doing distinct work (scope, return values, usage ordering). The most actionable guidance ("call this first") is saved for the end as a clear directive, with 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what is returned. It covers scope, key, languages, and usage ordering; the only omission is any hint about the limit/paging behavior, which is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 67% and already documents query and market, but the description adds value the schema lacks: asset-type scope and that queries work in English or Arabic. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both places, which caps this below a 5.

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 (search) and resource (instruments), scopes the asset types (stocks, ETFs, funds, indices) and the lookup key (ticker or company name). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_instrument_details and screen_market without opening either 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?

"Call this first when you only know a company name" gives explicit sequencing guidance and implies the downstream alternative (get_instrument_details by id). No explicit when-not condition or named alternative, which keeps it just 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.