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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning that it returns rows based on criteria and limit. It does not disclose any additional traits like pagination or rate limits, which would be helpful but are not required given the 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences defining the tool's purpose and a bulleted list of arguments. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 simple screening tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format or error conditions, but the open-world hint suggests the agent can explore. Somewhat complete.

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 compensate. It describes 'criteria' as a filter dict with examples (sector, market cap, P/E, etc.) and 'limit' as max rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed on acceptable values.

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 states 'Screen ChiNext (Shenzhen growth board) — China's Nasdaq-equivalent for growth companies.' It uses a specific verb (Screen) and resource (ChiNext), distinguishing it from sibling tools that screen other markets.

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 usage for ChiNext stocks through its title and the context of sibling tools for other markets. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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