search_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the backing API request and the resolution behavior (keyword in, mnemonic out), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or how many results come back by default.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed immediately by the canonical usage pattern. No filler whatsoever.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose plus the key workflow handoff to get_reference_data. The only real gap is parameter-level detail, notably max_results.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The phrase 'by keyword' loosely maps to query, but max_results (default 25) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: find Bloomberg field mnemonics by keyword, with the underlying service (//blp/apiflds FieldSearchRequest) named. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_instruments via the concrete 'market cap' -> CUR_MKT_CAP example.

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?

Explicitly says to use this before calling get_reference_data, and the example shows the sequencing (keyword now, mnemonic later). It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or name alternative lookup paths.

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