search_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it is a search, but does not mention if data is read-only, rate limits, pagination, or result characteristics. The description is insufficient for understanding operational traits.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is optimally structured for quick parsing.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., list of symbols, company names) and any default behavior. Lacking this, the description is incomplete and leaves critical questions unanswered.

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 description adds little beyond the input schema. The schema already describes the 'query' parameter as 'Search query (company name or keywords)'. The tool description essentially repeats that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide extra semantic 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 clearly states the action ('search') and resource ('stock symbols') with criteria ('by company name or keywords'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_company_info which provide data on a specific symbol. However, it does not specify the exact output format or whether partial matches are supported.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_quote or get_historical. There is no mention of alternatives or when not to use it.

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