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

Annotations already declare it read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 60-candidate window, at most 12 returned rows, presets only become stricter, the custom baseline (market cap >=300M plus canonical fair value), NYSE/NASDAQ limitation, and required disclosure of coverage gaps and source dates. This gives an agent the full operating picture of a screening call.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and constraint sentences are dense but each carries policy an agent needs (auth, limits, disclosure duties). A few clauses are run-on (the final disclosure sentence bundles several caveats), so it is not maximally clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described. Combined with annotations, the description covers activation, auth, quotas, filtering semantics, universe bounds, preset behavior, and disclosure obligations — everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 60% and the filter fields are individually well documented, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics: decimal-fraction conventions (0.15 = 15%), presets retaining baseline conditions, baseline thresholds, and the 'smallest faithful filter set' instruction. It doesn't cover growth_comparison explicitly, leaving that to the schema, so slightly below top marks.

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 ('bounded ValuEdge stock screen for research candidates') and enumerates the screen types (undervalued, quality, dividend, large-cap, positive-FCF). This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like get_stock_fundamentals and compare_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?

Gives explicit trigger ('when the user wants a bounded ValuEdge stock screen'), prerequisites (sign in / create a free account, quotas and entitlements apply), and exclusions ('Arbitrary database queries and trade instructions are not supported'). Also guides toward presets vs. custom filters and the smallest faithful filter set.

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