Investments Search Securities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent that the tool is safe, idempotent, and returns results from an open world. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result format, likelihood of empty results). With annotations covering the core safety traits, a score of 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?

The description is extremely concise (3 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of substance. It lacks front-loaded key information about scope, parameters, or output. A description should be as short as possible but not shorter; this one is under-specified.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'security', how search results are ordered (though a parameter hints at popularity), or what fields are returned. The agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke or interpret results from this description alone.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description 'Search securities' adds no additional meaning for the undocumented parameters like 'limit', 'query', 'order_by_popularity', and 'session_path'. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 'Search securities' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (securities), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'investments_get_security' that retrieve a single security. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects are searchable (e.g., name, ticker), which would improve clarity further.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'investments_get_security' or 'investments_list_holdings'. It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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