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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does so usefully: the 15-holding cap, evaluation under "all four standards," and the returned artifacts (per-standard compliance share, failing holdings, combined dividend purification ratio) are all disclosed beyond anything in the structured fields.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates inputs and outputs without padding. The leading "Mizan." brand token is redundant with the name/title and is the only wasted element.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload (compliance shares, failing holdings, purification ratio), and it covers the input cap and standards scope. It omits what the four standards are and any auth or failure behavior, but for a one-parameter read-only tool it is nearly sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's ticker:value weighting syntax is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only indirectly touches the parameter by restating the 15-holding limit, adding no format or weighting detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Screen") and resource ("a whole portfolio"), with the batch nature made concrete via "up to 15 holdings." The scope distinction from the singular mizan_screen_company sibling is inferable from "whole portfolio," but that sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent's inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope words "whole portfolio" and "up to 15 holdings." There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to mizan_screen_company for single holdings, so an agent must infer the boundary between the batch and single-company tools.

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