search_equities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Search,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it returns only exact matches or partial matches. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. No redundant phrases. Could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness, but currently efficient.

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 should hint at return format (e.g., list of symbols or full equity objects). It is adequate for a simple search but lacks completeness in specifying what the agent can expect after invocation.

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%, with both parameters well-documented: 'symbol' is described as 'Symbol or partial symbol to search' and 'lendability' has an enum and description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for equity instruments by symbol. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_accounts and get_positions, which are not search tools. However, it could be more specific about what is returned (e.g., list of matching equities).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are distinct, there is no mention of scenarios where search_equities is appropriate or when other tools might be better (e.g., using get_market_metrics for details).

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