search_equities

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that it reads from a local cache with no API call, and that it returns an empty list when the cache is unpopulated. These are valuable behavioral details not captured by 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage guidance, but contains minor redundancy — the 'no API call' detail is repeated in the prose and again in the [Source] line. Still, it remains compact and well-structured.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description covers the purpose, use case, matching behavior, source, and edge case (empty cache). The output schema exists, so no need to spell out return shape here. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter — partial/full matching, case-insensitivity, and examples in Japanese and English. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool searches for listed stocks by company name, using a reverse lookup (company name to code). It provides concrete examples and distinguishes this from sibling tools that retrieve market data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user knows a company name but not the stock code' with illustrative queries. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the instruction is clear enough to guide selection.

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