search_scrip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states what is returned conceptually and provides an example, but it does not disclose matching semantics (e.g. exact vs partial, case sensitivity), whether multiple results may be returned, or what happens on no match. This is a minor gap for a simple lookup 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and result, the second gives a concrete example and usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has only two required parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides enough operational context for a correct call. It covers the search purpose, the crucial use case, and a realistic example. Minor omissions like exchange options and error behavior are not necessary for basic 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 partially does by showing exchange='NSE' and searchscrip='INFY', but it does not define valid exchange values or the expected format/pattern for searchscrip beyond an example. Meaningful but incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource and result fields ('tradingsymbol and symboltoken of an instrument by name'). The example and the phrase 'before placing orders or requesting quotes' help distinguish it from price/quote tools like get_ltp and get_market_quote.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: to resolve symboltoken before placing orders or requesting quotes. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct routing among the sibling tools.

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