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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces with 'Nothing is changed' plus the ranking logic and correlation range (-1 to +1). It adds real context about how suggestions are generated, though 'Nothing is changed' largely echoes readOnlyHint.

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 core purpose, but the tail is bloated: deep_link is described twice ('full analysis page... with the fair value history chart and the result of each valuation model' then repeated almost verbatim), and the fair-value derivation point is restated. Several sentences could be consolidated.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the work of documenting return fields: valuation_status with its enum semantics, upside_band banding format, quality_score range, evidence_level, deep_link, and correlation_to_watchlist. An agent can interpret results without further documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'replace' causes the suggestions to match the size of that stock and that ranking is driven by correlation, which the schema's terse parameter text does not convey.

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 (suggest) and resource (stocks fitting the saved watchlist) along with the exact eligibility criteria: below fair value, high quality, not yet on watchlist, ranked by quality/undervaluation/correlation. This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like screen_stocks and add_to_watchlist.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('what would diversify my watchlist', 'what could replace Home Depot'), explains that a 'replace' request sizes the suggestions to that stock, and explicitly routes the mutation case to add_to_watchlist. When-to-use and an alternative are both named.

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