tickers_search

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

Annotations already supply the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail (case-insensitive substring matching over available tickers), but does not mention return shape, result limits, or behavior when no match is found, so it is not rich context.

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 conveys the action, the resource, and the matching behavior with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only search tool, the description plus annotations cover the essential behavior. The lack of an output schema leaves return-format details unstated, but the phrasing 'Search available tickers' implies the result is the matching set of tickers.

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%, but the description compensates by defining the single query parameter as the case-insensitive substring used to search. This is sufficient to know what value to pass.

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') with a clear resource ('available tickers') and a precise matching mode ('case-insensitive substring'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tickers_list, which would be the listing alternative.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a substring of a ticker is known and matching available tickers is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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