search_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a name/symbol lookup returning matching tickers (with examples), but discloses nothing about permissions, read-only nature, result ordering, or behavior when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by scope and then examples. The examples earn their place by clarifying intent, though the scope sentence could be tighter.

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 2-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and output examples well. It only falls short on explicit usage routing and on behavioral details like return format or empty-result handling.

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%: both query and limit already carry their own descriptions with format hints and a default. The description adds illustrative query values but no semantics beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (search an exchange-traded asset by symbol or name to find the correct ticker) and reinforces it with concrete mappings ('ASELSAN' → ASELS.IS). It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling get_* price/history tools since it is the only discovery/lookup tool, but it never explicitly frames itself that way.

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 names the asset classes it covers (BIST stocks, global stocks, ETFs, indices), which implies when it applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance such as 'use this to resolve a ticker before calling get_stock_history'.

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