indicator_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (titles grouped by section) but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word adds value, and the grouping detail is mentioned without redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema. It covers what is searched and the structure of results. Missing only minor details like default limit behavior, but these are unlikely to be critical.

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 documentation covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description mentions 'by keyword' linking to the query param but adds little beyond the schema; grouped-by-section is a result behavior, not parameter semantics.

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 (search), resource (TradingView's Indicators dialog), and scope (indicators, strategies, community/public scripts). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like symbol_search and indicator_add, as it targets the Indicators dialog specifically.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like symbol_search or indicator_add. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer usage, but there's no contrast or exclusion clause.

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