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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that the tool is a bulk discovery tool returning scores, but does not disclose filtering behavior details beyond the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the use case is clear, and the sibling alternative is given in one short sentence.

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 9-optional-parameter filter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to choose and invoke the tool. It could mention what the returned rows look like, but the description's 'matching tickers with their scores' plus the schema's param descriptions largely cover agent needs.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'scores', so it stays at the baseline rather than enhancing understanding.

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 ('Filter') and resource ('the whole equity universe'), and specifies the output: matching tickers with their scores. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rank_consensus tool, making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the bulk discovery tool for questions of the form 'which companies have X', and names the alternative rank_consensus for ranking by cross-signal agreement. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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