Search symbols

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation context: what an empty list means and how to recover, plus the Persian spelling tolerance. It does not mention ranking/ordering of matches or pagination beyond the limit param.

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?

Three short, front-loaded blocks: what it finds, when to use it and what to do with the result, and what an empty result means. No filler sentences; each one carries distinct operational guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned identifiers used by downstream tools and by interpreting the empty-result case. For a 2-parameter read-only search, an agent has everything needed to call it and to handle the response.

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; the description goes slightly beyond by framing `query` as either ticker or name and by naming the result fields (`symbol`, `ins_code`) an agent will need downstream. That output-mapping context is not in the input schema and is the main added value.

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 specific verb and resource ('Find Tehran Stock Exchange instruments') and enumerates what can be found (shares, funds, rights, bonds) plus the matching keys (ticker or name). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like ts_get_quote, which need an already-resolved symbol.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use first when you only have a name' and directs the agent to pass the result's `symbol` or `ins_code` into the other ts_ tools, which is a clear routing rule to siblings. It also prescribes recovery behavior on an empty result ('retry with a shorter name or the other spelling').

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