Search symbols, funds, options and indices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are per-source blocks, and one failing source does not sink the other. It does not describe result ordering or what a zero-hit response looks like, keeping it short of a 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?

Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose then workflow, with no filler sentences. Minor duplication with the schema's `source` description about partial failure keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what identifiers come back and how to consume them downstream. For a four-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% (kind, limit, query, source are all documented, including the caution about options), so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned identifier means per source (isin for Mofid, id/ISIN or national code for Agah) and why the two lists are kept apart, which is the semantic key to using the results correctly.

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 concrete verb and resource set: 'Find the id of a stock, fund, option or index by name or symbol, in Mofid and Agah.' It also names the sibling tools it feeds (br_stock, br_history, br_fund, br_options), so an agent can place it precisely in the tool graph.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use it first when you only have a name') and an explicit next step ('Pass either to br_stock, br_history, br_fund or br_options'). It also warns that funds have distinct ids per source, which tells the agent not to deduplicate across sources.

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