search_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool returns 'the security ID and quote provider needed by get_quotes,' which is key for downstream usage. However, it does not disclose behavior such as result limits, what happens with multiple matches, or error handling, making the transparency adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences, succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a concrete usage example, with no redundant content.

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 search tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it searches by, what it returns (ID and provider), and why that output is needed. It lacks some detail such as result format, but the combination of schema and description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with all four parameters described in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does align with the search criteria mentioned (name, ISIN, WKN). Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'securities' and explicitly lists search criteria (name, ISIN, WKN). It further clarifies the tool's output's purpose by linking to get_quotes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quotes or list_investments.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to resolve ''Apple'' or an ISIN to a tradable security.' This clearly states when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond get_quotes, so it falls short of a 5.

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