search_indian_stocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that matching supports partial ticker symbols and that limit controls result count, which is useful. However, it does not mention result ordering, empty-result behavior, or any other runtime characteristics beyond the basic search semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by concise parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not discuss trade-offs versus sibling tools, but that gap is already reflected in the usage guidelines score. Overall, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining both parameters: query accepts a company name or partial ticker symbol, and limit caps the number of results with a default of 10. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Indian stocks'), and the two search dimensions (company name or partial ticker symbol). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinct from siblings like stock_quote, which returns a specific quote, and market_overview, which provides a broader market snapshot.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find Indian stocks by company name or partial ticker symbol. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous and easy for an agent to act on.

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