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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the access-scoping model (own / org-shared / house), which is the most important behavioral fact for an agent reasoning about result completeness. It does not state that this is a read-only, zero-argument call, nor anything about ordering, result size, or whether unauthorized keys simply get an empty list.

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?

Two compact sentences: scope first, downstream consumer second. Every clause earns its place, though the first sentence is a noun phrase fragment rather than a direct statement of what the tool does, which slightly delays comprehension.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what comes back, under what visibility rules, and what to do with the returned ids. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether screens can be run without an explicit id lookup.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The implicit dependence on the calling key's identity is worth noting but is not a parameter.

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 names a specific resource (saved Entity Screener screens) and enumerates the exact scope of what is returned: the owner's own screens, those shared with their organization, and Palanor's house screens. It is clearly distinguishable from data-returning siblings like palanor_run_screen, though it never uses an explicit listing verb and relies on the tool name for that.

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?

"Ids feed palanor_run_screen" gives a concrete downstream path, so the agent knows the purpose is discovery-then-execution rather than analysis. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about what to do if the list is empty, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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