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 indicates a read-like operation (screening) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may partially compensate, but the description omits key behavioral details.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no redundant words. Every part adds value.

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 21 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits default behavior (e.g., limit=20, sort by market_cap), how to use optional filters like GICS sectors, and the meaning of order. The output schema may help, but the description alone is insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, and the description only enumerates a subset of metrics (PE, PB, ROE, margins, market cap, dividend yield), leaving many parameters like limit, order, sort_by, GICS filters, and ev_ebitda undocumented. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action 'Screen stocks' across specific markets (US/JP/KR/HK/CN) and lists the key metrics (PE, PB, ROE, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from siblings like search_companies or get_metrics.

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 when to use this tool (for screening by valuation and quality metrics) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives like get_metrics for specific companies or search_companies for name-based search. However, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to infer typical usage.

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