search_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the partial-match behavior and the resolution role, modestly enriching beyond the annotations, but leaves matching details like case sensitivity to the parameter description.

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 with zero waste: the first delivers the core purpose, the second delivers usage guidance with a concrete example. Purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), and the combination of description, fully-documented schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema leaves nothing material uncovered. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what result to expect.

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%: query documents matching behavior with examples ('bitcoin' will not match; 'btc' will), and limit documents its default and clamping. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter-specific detail.

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: 'Find symbols by partial name or asset code.' The matching mechanism is explicit, and the phrase 'before calling other tools' positions it as the discovery step distinct from siblings like get_ticker and get_symbol_info, which operate on already-resolved symbols.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to resolve a vague pair such as "sol usd" into an exact symbol before calling other tools,' giving both a trigger condition and a concrete example. It provides clear workflow context but doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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