search_instruments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching instruments with their IDs and is a search operation, implying read-only behavior. It adds workflow context ('first step to get insId') but doesn't mention rate limits, sorting, or result limitations, so not a full 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and alternative guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose, what it returns (matching instruments with IDs), when to use it (first step to find insId), and when not to use it (global instruments). The schema covers parameter semantics, so this description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 (query and maxResults). The description repeats that query is by name or ticker, matching the schema's own description, and adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Thus baseline 3.

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 searches for Nordic instruments by name or ticker and returns matching IDs. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool search_global_instruments by naming the alternative, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first to find the insId needed for other tools.' It also tells the user to use search_global_instruments for global instruments, clearly defining the scope and alternative.

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