search_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, its performance characteristics (e.g., real-time vs. cached data), error handling, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Search for trading contracts')—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits necessary context for effective use.

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?

Given the complexity (a search operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of contracts, metadata), how results are sorted or limited, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured output, this leaves critical gaps.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (keyword, exchange, category) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as how parameters interact (e.g., AND/OR logic) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the basic purpose ('Search for trading contracts') which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource ('trading contracts') but lacks detail about what kind of search this is (e.g., full-text, filtered, exact match) and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_snapshots' or 'get_kbars' that might also retrieve contract-related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during trading hours, for research), or exclusions. With siblings like 'get_snapshots' and 'get_kbars' that might overlap, this omission leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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