search_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination support, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds important behavioral context about pagination. There's no wasted language, though some might argue it's too brief given the tool's complexity.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'instruments' are, what fields are searched by default, how results are ranked, what the response structure looks like, or any error handling. The pagination mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation via the schema alone, with no additional value from the description.

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 the tool searches instruments, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this search functionality from other potential search tools or explain what 'instruments' means in this context (financial instruments, musical instruments, etc.). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 mentions pagination support but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 22 sibling tools including various data retrieval functions (get_historical_data, get_quotes, get_orders), there's no indication of when search_instruments is the appropriate choice versus other data access methods.

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