Search Contracts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals the operation is safe. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields (conid, symbol, exchange, security type, description) and the intended follow-up usage. This extra context about expected behavior goes beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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, two sentences long, and leads with the primary action. It avoids redundancy with the schema and provides necessary information (returned fields and how to use the output) without padding. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity — one required parameter, three optional ones, and a read-only operation — the description is fully adequate. It explains the purpose, return value, and how the result should be used. No output schema exists, but the listed return fields suffice. The presence of sibling tools is handled by its clear role as a general contract search.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating that the search can use symbol or company name, which is already covered by the 'symbol' and 'isName' descriptions. The 'secType' parameter is only explained in the schema, not in the tool description.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('securities'), and lists the key output fields (conids, symbol, exchange, security type, description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it returns conids to be used with other tools, making its role as a lookup/precursor clear.

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 implies a usage context: use this tool to obtain conids for later use with other tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this search tool versus the more specific sibling tools like get_stock_contracts or get_futures_contracts. There is no mention of alternatives or when to avoid this tool.

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