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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: evidence grouped by independent source, typed risk factors, data quality, live 1h hit rate, and next calls to make. No contradiction with 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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences: the core action and output come first, followed by the usage directive and objective list. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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 compensates by enumerating the returned payload: ranked symbols, supporting/conflicting evidence by source, risk factors, data quality, hit rate, and next calls. Optional filter behavior and some parameters are left to the schema, but the core selection and use case are well covered.

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 64%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces the objective enum and frames constraints generically, but it does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 operation ('goal-driven scan') and the exact resource (ranked opportunity symbols with evidence and risk factors). The objective enum is spelled out, and the instruction to use it instead of chaining screeners differentiates it from specialized screener siblings like find_strong_buying or find_unusual_activity.

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 tells the agent when to invoke the tool: when an objective and constraints are named, use it instead of chaining screeners. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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