search_trading_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important safety trait that the call is read-only and that credentials are never exposed, which is genuine value. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or whether the search is across one connection only, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the security reassurance. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is a fragment whose placement is slightly bolted-on rather than integrated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only claim covers the safety question. However, for a search tool in a dense cluster of trading-connection tools, the absence of any scoping or routing information leaves a real gap in deciding when to call it.

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 both 'query' and 'connection' are already documented in structured data. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail (prefix vs substring, case sensitivity) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: search venue symbols for a trading connection. It is distinguishable from the many mutation siblings (submit_order, verify_trading_symbol) by the word 'search', though it never names its nearest alternative (verify_trading_symbol) explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is a pre-flight lookup before verify_trading_symbol, confirm_execution, or submit_order.

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