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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: results are capped at the requested limit and the dataset refreshes daily, plus a citation requirement. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid screenerId, which is a gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and the return contents, then the id dependency, then the freshness/citation details. No filler.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fundamentals (price, market cap, P/E, dividend yield, ROE) and states freshness, which is enough to call and interpret the tool. Auth and failure behavior remain unspecified but are minor for a read-only lookup.

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%, so both parameters (screenerId, limit) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description only reiterates that ids come from list_screeners and adds example values, matching the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 (run) and resource (predefined stock screeners) plus the shape of the return (top matching US stocks with fundamentals). It also names the sibling that supplies valid input, so the agent can tell it apart from get_undervalued_stocks and get_valuation_scorecard without opening a schema.

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 list_screeners for valid ids and gives three concrete example ids, which is real when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit when-not condition, but the dependency chain (list first, then run) is unambiguous.

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