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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions input filtering capabilities but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. The agent is left without knowledge of what the tool returns or how it behaves beyond the filter inputs.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists filter categories. The pointer to presets adds useful routing information without unnecessary length.

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 the tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers input filtering well but omits return value structure, pagination behavior, default settings, and how it relates to other fundamental tools beyond presets. This is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by grouping parameters into meaningful categories (profitability, growth, financial-health, dividends) and mapping them to the schema fields. It omits units or value ranges (e.g., percentages vs decimals), but it adds substantial semantic meaning for most parameters.

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 clearly identifies this as a multi-filter stock screener and lists specific filter categories (profitability, growth, financial-health, dividends) plus sector/industry scoping and sort control. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring it the PRIMARY tool for 'find me stocks that…' queries.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('find me stocks that…' asks) and points to ready-made strategies in /fundamentals/screener/presets as an alternative. However, it does not contrast with other fundamental data tools like search or company_full, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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