search_global_instruments

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

Discloses the Pro+ subscription requirement and that it returns IDs, which are useful behavioral context. With no annotations, the read-only nature of search is implicit, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect safety or other limitations.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, requirement, usage, and return. No fluff, information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides sufficient information for a simple 2-parameter tool: what it does, how to use it, its subscription requirement, and its return. Without an output schema, the return detail (IDs) is adequate for correct usage.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents query and maxResults. The description repeats 'name or ticker' without adding new semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Search for Global instruments by name or ticker' with specific verb, resource, and scope. The distinction from sibling 'search_instruments' is explicit through 'Global', and examples (Apple, Microsoft) reinforce usage.

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?

Provides clear context that this is for global companies, with examples. It implies the alternative (search_instruments for local) by the name/description, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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