Search instruments by symbol or name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: trading-board symbols carry a trailing digit the yields table omits (اخزا301 vs اخزا3011), so a stem search plus reading names is required. It does not say how results are ordered or what a match record contains, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the alternative — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical asset-class list and hyphenated wrap make it slightly denser than necessary, but every clause carries information.

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 2-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the id-producing role, a real matching pitfall, and the sibling alternative. Minor gap: it never characterizes the return (list of instruments with id/symbol/name), though 'read the names' implies 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `query` is a STEM (partial), Persian, and matches may not be exact due to the digit-suffix quirk, implying the agent should read returned names rather than assume a hit. `limit` is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find Iran Fara Bourse instruments ... by symbol or name', with the asset classes enumerated. It also names the sibling it is not (ifb_yields), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

States the primary job explicitly: turn a symbol into an `id` that every other ifb_ tool requires, which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also routes away from itself for yield-based bond lookups ('use ifb_yields instead') and gives a concrete workaround for the digit-suffix mismatch.

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