search_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the result shape (up to 10 matches with signatures and doc links), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth/network requirements, or freshness of the reference data. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return format and the usage cue. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 and no annotations, the description steps in to describe the return values (matches, signatures, doc links) and the intended use case. It is nearly complete for a simple 2-parameter search tool, missing only the 'limit' parameter's explanation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'query' parameter semantics ('by name or section') and implies the result cap ('up to 10 matches'), but never explains the 'limit' parameter's role or acceptable range beyond what the schema's min/max already enforce.

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+resource (search the official MQL5 function reference) and scopes it to lookup 'by name or section.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_signature or explain_code, but the search-and-return-matches framing is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Use before writing MQL5 calls to avoid MQL4 syntax or invented functions.' That's a clear triggering context, though it names no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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