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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a modest behavioral cue: the tool does not return every fallen stock, but filters for companies whose fundamentals still hold. However, it does not explain thresholds, the cost of universe scans, or result behavior, so the added transparency is limited.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core idea is front-loaded. It loses one point because the terseness omits usage and behavioral context that would help an agent select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 read-only annotation, zero required parameters, and exhaustive parameter descriptions, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer the tool's purpose and call it sensibly. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return shape, limitations, pricing, or how it differs from sibling screening tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, and the parameter descriptions—especially for anchor, scope, and minDrawdownPct—already carry substantial semantic detail. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Polish description, 'Spółki, które mocno spadły, ale fundamenty trzymają', clearly conveys that this tool finds companies that have fallen sharply while retaining sound fundamentals. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_overheat_candidates, but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement and does not mention the returned shape.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_overheat_candidates, find_opportunities, or get_top_opportunities. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions; the intended use is only implied by the tool name and the one-line description.

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