stocks_search_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it searches for a symbol by company name but doesn't disclose return format, edge cases, limitations, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when invoking the tool.

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 very short but appears to be an incomplete fragment, ending with '(e.g.' and no continuation. While conciseness is good, the truncation makes it poorly structured and incomplete, failing to fully communicate the intended message.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description still needs to provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It fails to explain how to provide the company name, what the output looks like, or any example usage. The description is too truncated to be considered complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the key semantic that the search is 'by company name,' which would be the implicit input. Even though the schema doesn't list a company_name parameter, the description gives the agent an idea of what the tool expects. No contradiction or additional parameter details are provided.

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 searches for a stock ticker symbol by company name, using a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('stock ticker symbol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocks_get_chart and stocks_get_quote, which have different purposes. However, the description is truncated ('e.g.' without examples), so it doesn't fully achieve complete clarity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not how to decide to invoke it.

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