Investments Search Securities

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

The read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive annotations are present and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as search scope, matching semantics, or result formatting.

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?

It is short and free of filler, but the extreme brevity veers into under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. There is no structure or detail beyond a bare action phrase.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, this one-line description is not complete enough for a caller to use the tool confidently. Missing details include what universe of securities is searched, how results are ordered, and how this relates to investments_get_security.

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 only 40%, and query/limit/order_by_popularity are effectively undocumented. The sentence 'Search securities' does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the query field's name already implies.

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 names a concrete verb ('search') and resource ('securities'), so a caller can tell this is a search operation rather than a get/list operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as investments_get_security or investments_list_holdings, which prevents a 5.

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 is provided for when to use this tool versus the many related investment tools. There are no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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