search_etfs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: query handling logic, default strategy, pagination with limit/offset, and a 5000 row cap. This is sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter list, but it is somewhat lengthy. One or two sentences could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

With 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers every parameter's behavior and default values. An output schema exists (not shown), which would cover return format, making the description complete for this tool.

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 schema has zero documentation coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including examples (e.g., asset_class like 'class-equity', region like 'World'). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure alone.

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 tool searches the justETF screener and returns ETF overview rows. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('justETF screener'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_charts and get_etf_profile which serve different purposes.

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 explains query behavior (ISIN vs free-text) and strategy options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, siblings are clearly separate functions, so usage context is apparent.

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