moneycontrol_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the return format, the meaning of sc_id, and the behavior on no matches. No contradictions.

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 Args and Returns sections and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool: it explains inputs, outputs (including example return), and how the result is used downstream. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need for description, but the description already covers 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly documents all four parameters in the Args section, adding context like default values (kind defaults to 'stock', limit defaults to 10) and the purpose of sc_id for sibling tools. This more than compensates for schema gaps.

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 it searches Moneycontrol for a stock or index and resolves identifiers, specifically mentioning it's the first step to obtain sc_id for other tools. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the initial lookup tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FIRST' and explains why (to obtain sc_id or index name). It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient for typical use cases.

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