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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.25) and that it's not investment advice, but does not detail data recency, error handling, or behavioral traits beyond the scanning logic.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and key details, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, with 7 parameters mostly undocumented and limited behavioral transparency, the description is not fully complete for an effective scan tool.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses 'exclude_foreign' explicitly. Other parameters (fy, limit, industry, min_score, min_revenue, min_margin_of_safety) are not described, leaving a significant gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Buffett Value Scan' that combines quality scores with valuation metrics to find undervalued companies. It specifies key criteria (market cap, FCF yield, margin of safety) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'buffett_scan'.

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 gives some context (exclusion of foreign issuers by default, cost, not investment advice) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buffett_scan' or 'screen_companies'.

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