search_stocks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the search is exact or fuzzy, what fields are matched, or any side effects. As a read-like operation, read-only hint is absent. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core purpose without any redundant words or irrelevant details.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., list of matches, symbols, full details), which is critical for an agent to decide if the tool meets its needs. Completeness is inadequate for a search tool.

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%, and the description ('by company name or ticker symbol') aligns with the parameter description ('Search query (company name or partial ticker)'). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 resource 'stocks', and the methods 'company name or ticker symbol'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'compare_stocks' or 'get_available_stocks' by focusing on searching by specific criteria.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'search_stocks' is for finding specific stocks by name/ticker, while 'get_available_stocks' lists all available stocks. The agent lacks context to choose effectively.

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