search_symbol

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: partial matching, market filtering, default limit, and the disambiguation flow. This gives the agent a clear model of how the tool behaves in various queries, complementing the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section (usage context, examples, disambiguation, args) contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 symbol lookup tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input semantics, usage guidance, behavioral edge cases, and examples, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: query supports partial matching, market limits to specific exchanges, and limit has a default of 10. This fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: finding stock symbols by name or ticker. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that all market price lookup tools require a symbol and this is the first step when a user asks by name.

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 gives explicit instructions on when to use the tool ('사용자가 종목명으로 물으면 먼저 이 도구를 쓴다') and provides concrete examples. It also describes the disambiguation behavior (asking the user when multiple results) which is essential context for interactive use.

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