search_finance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool searches 'across' multiple named providers, which is useful, but it does not explain result merging, duplicate handling, latency, rate limits, or how provider failures are handled.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the search target and then lists the relevant providers, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The description and schema together define the search scope and result-count limits well. However, there is no output schema or annotation to clarify the structure of merged multi-provider results, empty-result behavior, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, num_results, and max_total_results are already well documented. The description adds only minor context by mentioning financial instruments in addition to tickers and company names, but it does not materially enhance the 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Search', and clearly names the resource: 'stock tickers, company names, and financial instruments'. It also names finance providers, which distinguishes this tool from generic sibling search tools like search_web, search_news, and search_google.

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 finance-specific scope implies when to use this tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative search tool to choose for non-financial queries. The usage context is present but only by implication.

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