get_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response is normalized and includes price, liquidity, performance, and classification fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no search_text is provided, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and return fields, it doesn't fully cover the context needed for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits details on required inputs for meaningful search (e.g., whether search_text must be provided), typical response size, or error behavior. The schema mitigates some gaps, but the description could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed explanations for filters, sort_by, quote_types, and others. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns a unified, cross-asset search result for financial instruments' and lists specific asset types and use cases (global asset search, ticker autocomplete, discovery flows). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_search_lite through the emphasis on cross-asset and unified results, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides concrete scenarios for when to use the tool: 'global asset search, ticker autocomplete, discovery flows, and AI-assisted search scenarios.' This gives clear context for appropriate use, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when NOT to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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