Find stock tickers and company listings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral substance: ambiguity handling ('never picks a listing when alternatives remain', 'Returns explicit ambiguous candidates') and venue reconciliation of Yahoo suffixes with share-class dots preserved. These are non-obvious resolution behaviors an agent must anticipate when interpreting results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resolve-then-research framing, and each sentence carries distinct information about resolution semantics or scope limits. The trailing 'Read-only.' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one line that doesn't earn its place.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and a resolution-oriented purpose, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the ambiguity contract, the no-enrichment boundary, venue-suffix handling, and result shape ('explicit ambiguous candidates'). An agent can call this correctly and interpret its output without further information.

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 100%, so every parameter including country, currency, exchange, quoteType, includeInactive and includeSecondary is already documented, and the description's filter list ('exchange/MIC, country, currency and instrument-type') merely restates it. The one genuine addition beyond the schema is that native share-class ticker dots are preserved. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource ('Resolve a company name, native ticker, ISIN or exchange-qualified symbol to Bullrun listings') and explicitly positions itself as a pre-step before 'exact-ticker research tools'. This clearly separates it from screen_stocks (screening) and search_etfs (fund lookup), which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('before calling exact-ticker research tools') and a scope exclusion ('No enrichment or market-data refresh'). It also notes that quoteType ETF/ALL 'does not make stock-only research tools valid for funds', steering fund lookups elsewhere. It stops short of naming search_etfs as the direct alternative, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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