webquik_search_securities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral constraint: the search only covers already-loaded class lists. That is genuine added context, but it omits read-only nature, whether limit caps results, and any pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so it earns credit for structure while falling short on completeness.

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 tool is conceptually simple. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves the class-list dependency and the role of class_code/limit unclear for correct invocation.

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 clarifies that 'query' matches ticker or name, but says nothing about 'class_code' (apparently scoping to a class) or 'limit' (default 30, presumably a result cap), leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (securities) plus the search key (ticker or name), which lets an agent distinguish it from webquik_get_security_info (single-security detail) and webquik_list_classes (class enumeration). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The phrase 'within loaded class lists' hints at a precondition, but the agent is left to infer that webquik_list_classes may need to run first and that webquik_get_security_info is the follow-up for details.

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