Search Symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals case-insensitive matching, but it does not state whether matching is exact, prefix, partial, or fuzzy, how results are ordered, or how the limit parameter behaves. For a search tool, this is a meaningful 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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action, target resource, searchable fields, and case-insensitive behavior are all front-loaded in a compact and readable way.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, this is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and a terse description, it leaves unresolved the matching behavior, limit semantics, and routing versus sibling tools. The output schema does cover return shape, which prevents a lower score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to query by specifying that it accepts a trading code or company name and is case-insensitive, but it says nothing about limit beyond the schema's type and default. One of two parameters remains semantically underdescribed.

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 ('Find'), a clear resource ('DSE instruments'), and precise search dimensions ('trading code or company name'). The case-insensitive note adds useful precision and distinguishes this from sibling tools like screen_stocks, which filter by broader criteria rather than instrument identifiers.

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 implies the tool is for looking up instruments when you already have a trading code or company name, but it gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not explain how this differs from screen_stocks or other sibling tools that might also locate instruments.

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