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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real value beyond them: it declares the signal is a heuristic for research rather than advice, discloses that it runs on daily bars, and enumerates the returned fields (score 0-100, reasons, etc.) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention data-source freshness or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with the screening purpose, followed by the criteria, return shape, tunability, and disclaimer in four tight sentences. The parenthetical list of tunable params is mildly redundant with the schema, but every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 compensates by naming the per-symbol return fields. It covers purpose, criteria, tunable inputs, output shape, and the heuristic caveat, and annotations handle the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes further by framing all four threshold inputs (rsi_threshold, ma_period, proximity_pct, lookback_days) as the tuning surface, telling the agent that calibration is achieved by parameter change rather than implying fixed behavior. It does not restate defaults or ranges, which the schema already supplies.

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 (US tickers on daily bars) and enumerates the exact conditions defining a 'bounce' (proximity to support/MA, oversold turning-up RSI, bullish candle, above-average volume). This is distinguishable from siblings like candlestick_signals or support_resistance_levels, which surface raw components rather than a combined screen.

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 implies usage ('Screen one or more US tickers', 'HEURISTIC signal for research, not investment advice') and the criteria make clear when a symbol would qualify, but it never states when to prefer this tool over candlestick_signals, support_resistance_levels, or stock_quote. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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