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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the exact return fields (id, name, description, category) and implies a safe read-only listing. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a static no-param catalog that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ending with the handoff to run_screener. The web URL is a small extra but adds user-facing value rather than noise.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields and the downstream usage pattern, so an agent knows both what it gets back and how to use it. Nothing needed to call or consume this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter-related omissions exist.

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 ('List Invexia.ai's predefined stock screeners') and concretely enumerates the categories covered (value, growth, dividend, momentum, guru-style). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_screener or get_undervalued_stocks.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool: 'Use a returned id with run_screener,' which disambiguates this discovery tool from the execution tool. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the discovery/execution split is clear.

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