search_symbol

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description usefully lists the returned fields in place of an absent output schema, but says nothing about the result cap (limit defaults to 15, max 50) or what happens on zero matches, which matters for a lookup tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states purpose, search basis, and return shape with no filler. The Persian alias in parentheses is the only extra, and it aids matching for bilingual queries.

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 two-parameter read-only search with rich safety annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient: it compensates for the missing output schema by naming return fields. The remaining gap is limit behavior and match semantics (exact vs substring, ranking), which an agent would need to call it optimally.

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 carries the burden and it only partly does: 'symbol or name fragment' clarifies what query accepts, but limit is never mentioned (its default and 50-cap exist only in the schema constraints). The query clarification is the main added value.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find instruments') plus the search basis ('symbol or name fragment'), and it enumerates what comes back (symbol, name, market, board, insCode). It is distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like quote or symbol_overview, though it never names them to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no alternative named. The only hint is the implicit 'you have a fragment, not an exact identifier' framing, leaving the agent to infer that this is a resolution step before calling symbol_overview or quote.

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