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. It discloses return behavior: 'Returns up to limit matches (1-25), each with its symbol, name, exchange, and instrument type.' This adds value beyond the schema and clearly sets expectations for output. It does not explicitly state side effects, but as a search operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by usage guidance and return format. No filler words; every sentence carries essential information. The reference to 'other tools accept' efficiently conveys integration context.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is complete. It covers the input forms (name, ticker, ISIN), the purpose (resolving to symbol), the limit range, and the return fields. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly in the broader toolset.

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 the description need not explain raw parameter names. It adds meaning by explaining that the query is resolved into a symbol accepted by other tools, and that the limit controls the number of returned matches. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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: 'Search Yahoo Finance by company name, ticker symbol, or ISIN.' It specifies a verb ('Search') and resource ('Yahoo Finance'), and distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by emphasizing its role as the first step to resolve identifiers into Yahoo symbols that other tools accept.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this first to resolve a name or ISIN into a Yahoo symbol that the other tools accept.' This clarifies when to use the tool and implicitly contrasts it with the other tools that expect a symbol. The instruction 'Use this first' is a direct call-to-action for the correct workflow.

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