search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (instrument_id, display_name, etc.) and the grouping behavior. However, it does not mention aspects like pagination, result limits, or whether matching is fuzzy/exact. The description covers the essential output behavior but leaves some operational details undisclosed.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then listing return fields, and ending with a usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler. It is a model of concise documentation.

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 search tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core: what it searches, what it returns, and how to proceed to get detailed data. It lacks detail on result grouping nuances and pagination, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. The description is complete enough for effective use.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While 'query' is implicitly defined by 'Free-text search', the limit's effect on result count is absent. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Free-text search for instruments and site pages', which clearly states the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quote or instrument, which retrieve specific instrument data, while search is the entry point for discovery. The mention of grouping by asset class adds further specificity.

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 provides a clear workflow: use search to find instruments, then feed an instrument_id into instrument/quote for the full snapshot. This implicitly tells the agent when to use search versus when to use quote. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but the follow-up guidance is valuable and sufficient for most scenarios.

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