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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it is a 'bulk discovery tool' operating on the 'whole equity universe' and returns tickers with scores. It does not contradict the annotation, and the added scope/return content is useful.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage context and an alternative. Every sentence is purposeful and there is zero filler.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the scope, the use case, and the alternative. It could note that all filters are optional but the schema descriptions cover that. The mention of return content (tickers and scores) partially compensates for missing output schema.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all 9 parameters with individual descriptions and enum constraints. The description itself does not mention any parameters or add semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Filter the whole equity universe and return matching tickers with their scores.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'bulk discovery tool' and naming an alternative (rank_consensus). This is unambiguous and context-rich.

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 states when to use ('questions of the form which companies have X') and provides a direct alternative ('To rank by cross-signal agreement instead, use rank_consensus'). This gives an agent clear decision guidance between siblings.

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