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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that no strategy is saved, but does not mention pagination, permissions, or result limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It quickly communicates the action, scope, and a key persistence constraint.

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 four-parameter tool with weak schema descriptions, the description leaves important gaps, especially how to obtain a valid preset_id and what limit/offset do. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation context is still under-specified.

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 description only hints at the preset and index-universe concepts, while schema description coverage is effectively 0% for the parameters. It does not explain preset_id validity, limit, offset, or the enum behavior for index.

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 and resource: running a built-in screener preset in an index universe. The phrase 'no strategy is saved' helps distinguish it from a custom strategy workflow, though it does not name the sibling tools run_screener or list_screener_presets.

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 implies use when running a built-in preset, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or directions to discover preset IDs via list_screener_presets. It also does not clarify when to choose this over run_screener.

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