search_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds two facts: Japanese language queries are supported ('Japanese OK') and the service is free. However, it does not disclose potential partial matching, result ordering, or rate limits, and the absence of an output schema leaves return behavior unspecified.

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, all informative. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by two concise supplemental notes. No filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the input semantics and adds relevant context (language and cost). It stops short of describing the result format, but for a search tool this is typically inferable.

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 only a bare 'query' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that the query is a stock name and that Japanese is accepted, giving the agent meaningful semantic guidance absent from the schema.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('stocks'), and a scoping attribute ('by name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote or get_chart, though it does not name them 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as market_screener or get_quote. The description only states the tool's basic function, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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