search

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 and it delivers only the word 'ranked'. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how the ranking works, what the default result cutoff of 20 does, or how source/channel narrow the search. For a five-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity — there is room for one or two more sentences that would materially help, so the brevity is not fully earned.

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 five parameters, two required, and no annotations or output schema, the description should do more work. It never mentions that asset_class is mandatory and chooses between crypto and equity implementations, which is the single most likely cause of a failed call. Essential facts an agent needs are absent.

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 only 20% — only asset_class is documented, while q, limit, source, and channel carry no descriptions. The one-sentence tool description adds nothing about any of these: it does not say q is a free-text symbol fragment, that limit is a ranking cutoff rather than a transport cap, or what source and channel filter on. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair: 'ranked symbol search over the lake inventory'. That is clear enough for an agent to know it queries a local symbol catalog and returns ranked results. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_symbols', which reads as nearly the same capability, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus 'search_symbols', 'query', 'catalog-symbols', or 'resolve-symbols', all of which appear in the sibling list. Nothing states prerequisites, such as the required asset_class selection or any need to have data loaded locally. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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