ibkr_search_contracts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns matching instrument descriptors, which is useful given no output schema, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result limits beyond the schema, or descriptor fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-ordered sentence: action verb, resource, search criteria, and return value. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity, read-only search tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides adequate guidance: what to search, what is returned, and that it is non-destructive. It could specify result shape or example patterns, but these are not essential for 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including default/maximum for limit. The description's mention of searching by ticker or company name closely mirrors the schema's 'Ticker prefix or company name fragment,' so it adds no meaningful semantic beyond structured data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('IBKR contracts'), and specifies both the input types (ticker or company name) and the outcome ('return matching instrument descriptors'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ibkr_contract_details, which would be used for a known contract's details.

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 clearly frames the use case: find IBKR contracts by ticker or company name. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the search-focused wording is sufficient to guide an agent among the read-only sibling tools.

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