search_scrips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a result cap ('up to 20 matches') and the returned fields. It omits other behavioral traits such as pagination, matching behavior, empty-result handling, and any auth/rate constraints, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Three short sentences: what it finds, what it accepts, what it returns, and the follow-on tip. Every sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-field list is redundant but harmless; the description adds the result cap and the 'use the scripcode elsewhere' workflow cue. Nothing essential is missing for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 0% — the 'query' property has no description at all — so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the four accepted identifier forms and gives three worked examples ('reliance', 'ABB', 'INE117A01022'). It does not clarify matching rules (partial vs exact) for the 'code fragment' case.

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+resource ('Find BSE scrip codes') and enumerates the accepted identifier types (company name, symbol, ISIN, code fragment) with concrete examples. This implicitly separates it from the sibling list_scrips, but it never names that sibling or draws the contrast explicitly.

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?

'Use the scripcode in the other tools' tells the agent this is a lookup starting point and signals downstream workflow, which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over list_scrips, nor any precondition or exclusion, leaving the search-vs-enumerate choice to inference.

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