Lookup Symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context by noting that market indices are only included when requested, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as matching semantics, result limits, or search coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence slightly restates the first, but overall each part earns its place by adding asset-class scope and the optional index behavior.

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 an output schema and strong read-only annotations, the description is adequately complete. An agent can confidently invoke the tool with a query and understand the optional index behavior; no critical missing information is apparent.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mostly restates the query and optional include_indices behavior without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool searches for financial symbols using a text query, and also identifies the resource types (stocks, ETFs, other assets). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_symbol_data or get_asset_profile, but the verb 'search' plus the query-string input makes the core purpose clear.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to resolve a company name, ticker, or partial match into a symbol. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling lookup tools or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is present but only implied.

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