search_symbols

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. It discloses that results are ranked and scoped to the lake inventory, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, pagination, error behavior, or return format. For a five-parameter search tool with no annotations, 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The alias note is useful but slightly cryptic; overall the structure is efficient rather than 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?

For a five-parameter tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain required asset_class, how results are shaped, or how this differs operationally from its many sibling search and catalog tools.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain q, limit, source, channel, or the required asset_class enum, so an agent must infer almost everything from the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ranked symbol search over the lake inventory.' That is clear enough to tell it is a symbol-search tool and not a data export or market-data query. The parenthetical 'alias of search' further identifies its relationship to the sibling tool, though it does not explain why an agent should choose this alias over search itself.

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 only usage signal is '(alias of search)', which implies equivalence but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not say whether to prefer this over search, list_symbols, resolve-symbols, or catalog-symbols, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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