search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns up to limit matches and describes the result fields, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the expected output. It doesn't mention edge cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only search this is adequate.

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-loads the core purpose, and includes the critical usage instruction in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple search tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There are no missing details that would hinder correct invocation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents query and limit thoroughly. The description reiterates that query accepts company name, ticker, or ISIN and that limit caps matches, which adds little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('Yahoo Finance by company name, ticker symbol, or ISIN'), and explains what it returns (matches with symbol, name, exchange, instrument type). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which retrieve specific data types rather than resolving entities.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first to resolve a name or ISIN into a Yahoo symbol that other tools accept, establishing a clear workflow and entry-point role. It gives an explicit 'when to use' without ambiguity, and the instruction 'Use this first' makes it obvious.

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