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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the methodology (total assets bases, thresholds), notes that boards using market cap may differ, and states the 5% revenue test is not assessed. This is thorough, though it could mention that the screen is based on filed financial statements and may be stale.

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 dense but organized with numbered lists, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the screen components. It is long, but every sentence adds necessary methodology details. Could be slightly tightened, but clear structure earns a high score.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, the methodology, limitations, and return values (verdict with ratios). It misses explicit mention of date of financial statements or potential delays, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 already describes the `ticker` parameter with examples (AAPL, XOM, JPM) and states it is a US-listed ticker. The description reiterates it is for US-listed companies, but adds no new semantics beyond that. Since coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3-4 is justified; slight extra clarity on the scope (US-listed) earns a 4.

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 the tool as a rule-based Shariah screen for US-listed companies, specifies the input (ticker), and outlines the business-activity and ratio screens. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its domain focus and methodology.

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 when to use this tool (when a Shariah compliance screen is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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