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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the universe is 'covered' and by explaining the intent of different sort values, which is useful behavioral information. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by useful sort guidance. There is no filler or redundant information, earning its place efficiently.

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 screening tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and sort strategies but omits details about how filters interact, the effect of the limit parameter, or what a result entry looks like. This is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for complex screening scenarios.

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 schema description coverage at only 22%, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the sort parameter by explaining which sorts to use for pullbacks/oversold vs leaders, but it does not explain filter parameters like rsi_above, rsi_below, min_signal_score, or max_signal_score beyond their names. Partial compensation leaves gaps.

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 states the tool screens the covered universe by trend, signal score, RSI, market, and sector, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_technical_analysis or search, relying on the reader to infer that this is a screening rather than a lookup tool.

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?

It provides actionable guidance for sort values, mapping 'below_high'/'rsi_asc' to pullbacks/oversold stocks and 'signal_desc'/'momentum_desc' to leaders. This gives clear context for when to use particular sort options, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention exclusions.

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