search_etf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it notes classification is derived from the product name because the upstream feed lacks a category field, and that base_date resolves backwards to a day with data. It also explains exclude behavior and former brand-name resolution, adding context beyond simple parameter lists.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' block that groups parameter semantics. Despite length, it remains scannable and every line adds necessary detail for a 13-parameter tool; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the complexity (0 required params, 13 optional, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral and parameter-level nuances. It even notes tricky behaviors like base_date backward resolution and former issuer brand names, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with examples and nuanced details. For instance, issuer supports former brand names, index_name should be an exact underlying index with a pointer to list_indices, and sort_by enumerates all valid values. This gives the agent far more than the raw schema provides.

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 opens with 'Find ETFs by name fragment, issuer, index and/or classification,' which clearly states the verb (find) and resource (ETFs). It also calls itself 'The main lookup tool,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_etf_quote or find_similar_etf.

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 identifies this as the main lookup tool and explains how filters combine with AND, giving a clear usage context. It references list_filters and list_indices for valid values, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative search-related siblings like find_similar_etf.

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