Rechercher des instruments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: search is case-insensitive, and it enumerates the returned fields (symbolId, connectionId, tickSize, lotStep, minLot/maxLot) in the absence of an output schema. It omits result ordering/ranking, the only notable gap.

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 sentences, zero filler: the search scope is front-loaded, then the return contract, then the hand-off instruction. Nothing redundantly restates the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields, and the downstream hand-off tells the agent where the symbolId goes. It leaves ranking/ordering and empty-result handling unexplained, which keeps it just short of fully complete 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%, so query, limit and connectionId are already documented in the schema with examples and bounds. The description repeats only the case-insensitivity of the query and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Recherche des instruments Quantower par texte') plus the matching semantics (nom/code, case-insensitive), and it names the follow-up tools to use the result with. An agent can tell this is the symbol-discovery step rather than a quote/history call, even though no sibling overlaps.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as the first step in a pipeline ('Utilisez ensuite quantower_get_quote / quantower_get_history avec le symbolId exact'), which tells the agent when to call it. It does not state any exclusions or what to do if the search returns nothing, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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