searchName

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or authentication needs, so it does not exceed the baseline for annotation-present scenarios.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information, 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?

The description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (ticker symbols, company names, exchange details). While no output schema is provided, the description gives enough context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of pagination details, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (query, limit, exchange). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Search), the resources (ticker symbols, company names, exchange details), and the context (FMP Name Search API). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like searchCompaniesByName or searchSymbol by focusing on retrieving symbols when the name is known.

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 a clear use case: 'useful for retrieving ticker symbols when you know the full or partial company or asset name but not the symbol identifier.' It implicitly suggests when to use this tool versus others, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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