search

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 only states that results are fetched and organized; it does not explain result ordering, pagination, limits, or any differences between search_type values. The lack of a mutation warning is fine, but the operational behavior is largely undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that states the core function upfront. The word 'organizes' is slightly vague, but there is no wasted content or structural clutter.

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 only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits usage routing and any practical behavioral constraints, so an agent still has to infer important details about when and how to invoke this tool versus siblings.

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%, with both 'query' and 'search_type' fully described and an enum provided, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the resource ('search results from Yahoo Finance') and the action ('fetches and organizes'), and it explicitly mentions stock quotes and news articles, which maps to the search_type enum. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_ticker_news or get_ticker_info, but the search-focused framing is still clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use search versus the sibling tools. It does not say, for example, that get_ticker_news is better for news-only lookup or that get_ticker_info is for detailed symbol data, so the agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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