suggest_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'resolves' symbols, but it does not disclose the return format, whether it returns a single match or a list of suggestions, or any potential errors. The example implies a mapping but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 extremely concise—only two sentences plus a one-argument block. It front-loads the purpose and includes a relevant example without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance and return-format details, but the low complexity and clear purpose make it adequate in context. The example and parameter explanation cover the essential usage.

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?

The schema only declares 'query' as a string with no description. The description's Args section provides full semantic meaning: 'The search text or company name.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, and the example further illustrates acceptable input.

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 and resolve' with a clear resource 'correct ticker symbols', and the example 'Reliance' to 'RELIANCE' clarifies the exact function. This tool is clearly distinct from sibling market-data tools like get_option_chain or get_historical_data.

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 description provides a clear use case with an example and the parameter explanation, indicating that the tool is for turning natural-language company names into ticker symbols. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it versus fetching market data.

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