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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing the return contents: compliance share per standard, failing holdings, and a combined dividend purification ratio. It does not, however, mention rate limits or weighting behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded in one tight sentence that leads with the action and scope. Minor waste in the opener 'Mizan. Screen a whole portfolio.' which restates the name and title, but overall efficient.

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 carries return-value explanation and does so adequately (compliance share per standard, failures, purification ratio). It also notes the 15-holding cap. It leaves the referenced 'four standards' unexplained, relying on mizan_list_standards, which is a small gap for a low-complexity one-parameter tool.

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 single 'holdings' parameter and its weighting syntax are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 scope detail 'up to 15 holdings under all four standards,' which clearly separates it from mizan_screen_company. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the batch-vs-single distinction is inferable.

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 implied by the batch 'whole portfolio' framing and the 15-holding boundary, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus mizan_screen_company or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the routing from scope alone.

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