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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (price, valuation, margin of safety) and the descending-score ordering, but says nothing about what 'récemment analysées' means, how the list is refreshed, or any pagination/auth behavior. Partial coverage of a tool with zero annotation support.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no wasted words. The return-contents clause earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it is ordered, which is the essential information. Missing pagination/refresh details keep it short of a 5.

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?

There is a single optional parameter ('limit') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents default and max. The description adds no additional meaning about limiting or result counts, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Retourne les résultats du screener') and adds scope detail: recently analyzed stocks with their VI Score, sorted by descending score. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like analyze_stock or compare_stocks, but the screener framing is distinct enough that an agent can identify it.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'screener'; no alternative-routing guidance is given.

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