search_instruments

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the backing service and the argument contract, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, ambiguity handling for fuzzy name matches, or truncation when max_results is hit. The existence of an output schema covers return-value disclosure, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. There is no filler and no repetition of schema boilerplate.

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 three-parameter lookup tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers purpose, inputs, and the asset-class filter adequately. The only meaningful gap is how the returned tickers relate to the other Bloomberg tools in the same family.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it gives concrete query examples ('apple', 'US0378331005', 'vodafone'), enumerates the full yellow_key asset-class list that the schema leaves as a bare string, and states the valid max_results range of 1-100.

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 states a precise verb and resource — 'Resolve a company name, ticker fragment or ISIN to Bloomberg tickers' — plus the underlying service (//blp/instruments), and enumerates accepted input types. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling search_fields, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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 use case is implied clearly (turn a free-text name or identifier into a Bloomberg ticker), and the query examples show the expected input shape. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_fields or get_reference_data, nor any note about follow-up steps after obtaining a ticker.

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