search_tickers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about return semantics ('Ranked matches plus exact-match/supported flags') and the validation aspect. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but for a simple search tool this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 highly efficient and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return value expectations in a clear, skimmable format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics with examples, and return value structure. There are no missing critical aspects such as prerequisites or complex behaviors, given the tool's straightforward nature.

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, and it does effectively. It explains 'query' as 'Symbol or company-name fragment (e.g. "NVDA" or "nvidia")' and 'limit' as 'Max matches to return (1-20)', adding meaning, examples, and constraints not present in the schema.

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 specific action verbs 'search or validate' with a clear resource: 'the platform's coverage universe'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ticker coverage and resolution, which is unique among the options-related siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use before deep analysis when unsure a symbol is supported, or to resolve a company name to its ticker.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since no sibling tool fulfills this role, it earns high marks but misses the full 5 due to lack of explicit exclusions.

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