search_securities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only search operation, but it does not disclose whether matching is partial or exact, whether results are ordered, or what the response shape looks like. No destructive or side-effecting behavior is implied, which 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action, target market, and query types, leaving parameter details to the schema. This is an appropriate size for a search tool.

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 100% schema coverage covers all inputs, and the tool's purpose is clear. The main gaps are the lack of explicit return-value description and matching semantics, which are somewhat inferable from the word 'search' but would be more complete if stated.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including defaults and examples. The description adds minor reinforcement by naming the query types (ticker, name, or ISIN), but it does not provide meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 operation (search), the resource (securities on MOEX), and the search dimensions (ticker, name, or ISIN). This makes it distinct from data-retrieval siblings like get_security_info and market-data tools: this is the discovery tool, not a specific-record or market-data fetcher.

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 intended use is implied: use it when you need to find securities by ticker, name, or ISIN. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer an alternative such as get_security_info, nor does it give exclusions or conditions that would help route the agent away from this tool.

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