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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for stocks but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination, sorting), potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for stocks') and efficiently specifies the search criteria. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, or error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. With no structured data to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query (company name or partial ticker)'. The description adds minimal value by restating this ('Search for stocks by company name or ticker symbol'), but doesn't provide additional context like examples, formatting tips, or search algorithm details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('stocks'), and specifies the search criteria ('by company name or ticker symbol'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_available_stocks' or 'get_stock_info' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval of predefined lists or detailed information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compare_stocks' which might also involve searching, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_stocks' over siblings like 'get_available_stocks' (which might list stocks without search) or 'get_stock_info' (which might require a specific ticker). There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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