search_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructive, idempotent hints. Description adds that it searches Vietnamese stocks and filters by sector, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., case sensitivity, pagination). With good annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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; the first clearly states purpose, but the second is a redundant Vietnamese translation that adds no value for an English-speaking agent. Could be more concise by removing the duplicate.

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?

Description does not mention the 'limit' parameter, output format, or how it differs from similar tools like 'screen_stocks'. With no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about return values.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description mentions search by ticker/name and sector filter, reinforcing schema but adding no new details beyond the examples already present in 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?

Description clearly states it searches Vietnamese stocks by ticker or company name with optional sector filter. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'screen_stocks', which likely has similar functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'screen_stocks' or other get_* tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or limitations.

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