chart_symbol_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that lookups hit TradingView's live browser API rather than a cached external service, which explains the open-world behavior. It does not explain the tab-context requirement or whether results are ranked, so credit stops at 3.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the sentence spends its only content on implementation trivia ('no external lookup service') rather than on information the agent actually needs, so brevity here comes at the expense of usefulness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a result looks like (symbol, exchange, asset type, ranking) and that a live chart tab identified by target_id is required. Instead it omits return shape entirely and leaves the strange mutation-flavoured parameters (target_id, expected_layout_id) unexplained for a readOnly tool.

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 75% (query, target_id, expected_layout_id documented; limit undocumented), so the schema carries most of the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how query is matched (prefix vs fuzzy), what limit defaults to, or why a read-only search takes a target_id and expected_layout_id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search symbols) and adds the implementation route (TradingView's native browser API). It is reasonably distinguishable from chart_symbol_info, but it never names that sibling or clarifies that this returns candidate matches rather than details for one symbol.

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 clause 'no external lookup service' implies the search runs against the live browser session, so an agent can infer a tab is needed. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of chart_symbol_info as the follow-up, and no note about what to do when results are empty.

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