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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral semantics: every filter is optional and AND-combined, omitting a filter leaves it unconstrained, and the output is a CSV with one row per matching stock. This gives the agent practical expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then states filter semantics, gives three illustrative examples, and closes with the output format. Every sentence earns its place; the examples are dense but directly improve usability.

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?

For a 20-parameter, fully optional tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing context: filter combination logic, representative queries, and return format. Parameter-level details are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is left unexplained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining the AND-combination behavior and giving concrete filter combinations (above_ema50=true & above_ema200=true & rs_rating_min=80, is_52w_high=true, vol_vs_sma50_pct_min=100), which helps the agent compose valid queries.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Screen CSE stocks by pre-computed technical criteria', naming the exact screening dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like screen_indices and get_technicals by framing it as a multi-criteria stock screener that returns matching rows.

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 establishes clear context: it is for screening stocks by optional, AND-combined technical filters, with three concrete examples showing realistic use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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