Robinhood Search Symbols

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core operation (search by company name or ticker) and is not misleading, but it adds nothing beyond the schema-specified query format: no mention of partial-match behavior, result count, output shape, auth requirements, or limits. For a read-only lookup this is adequate but not rich.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with zero redundancy, filler, or buried context. This is an exemplary level of economy.

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?

The tool is simple — one required, fully schema-documented parameter — so the bar is low. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about the return shape (e.g., a list of matching symbols with names) and how those results should be consumed downstream. Adequate for the simplest invocation, with a clear gap around result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'query' parameter is already documented as 'Search query (company name or partial ticker)'. The description's 'by company name or ticker' largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantics such as case-insensitivity, fuzzy matching, or minimum query length. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('stock symbols'), and the accepted query forms ('company name or ticker'). The verb 'search' clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_* tools, which all fetch specific data by an already-known symbol. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The intended workflow — searching for a symbol first, then passing it to a get_* sibling — is implied by the name and the shape of the sibling set, but never stated. There are no exclusions, conditions, or transition cues that would help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.

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