Search market symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context that matching is by ticker or company name, but it does not disclose result-set behavior, limits, or grouping semantics that could affect interpretation.

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 a single concise sentence with no padding and is front-loaded with the verb 'Search'. It earns its place, though it could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too minimal. It makes basic invocation possible (just `query`), but the agent will be lost when choosing or leveraging optional filters, grouping, sorting, or language/exchange constraints, which are critical for non-trivial searches.

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 compensate, but it only conveys the meaning of `query` ('tickier or company name'). The six optional parameters (`hl`, `lang`, `filter`, `exchange`, `enable_grouping`, `sort_by_country`) remain unexplained, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use them correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('instruments') and the search criteria ('by ticker or company name'). It is clearly distinct as rubuiet it is clearnot what returns is returned and it does not contrast with sibling `market_screen`, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives is provided. The context implies you use this tool when you have a ticker or company name to search for, versus `market_get_quote` or `market_creen`, but exclusion/alternatives are not stated.

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