searchName

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds real context that it covers equities and ETFs across various exchanges and returns symbol, name and exchange details, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination or truncation behavior for the search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the use case. The trailing 'with the FMP Name Search API' is vendor boilerplate that adds no decision value, but the rest is efficient and free of padding.

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?

For a three-parameter read-only lookup with a fully annotated schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case and returned fields (symbols, names, exchange details), which is what an agent needs to call it. It only lacks sibling routing and result-limit guidance.

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 query, limit and exchange are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds that queries may be full or partial names, a modest clarification of the query parameter beyond the schema's 'the search query to find company names'.

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 and resource: search for ticker symbols, company names and exchange details for equities and ETFs. It is clear what it returns, but among very close siblings (searchSymbol, searchCompaniesByName, searchCIK, searchCUSIP, searchISIN) it does not explicitly say what makes this one different beyond 'know the name but not the symbol'.

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 a usable trigger: use it when you know the full or partial company or asset name but not the symbol identifier. That implies the usage context, but it never names an alternative (e.g. searchSymbol or searchCompaniesByName) or states when this tool would be the wrong choice, leaving the agent to infer sibling routing.

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