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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the logical AND operator and the per-call cost, but it does not describe the return format, sorting behavior, handling of empty results, or whether the operation is read-only. The description largely restates schema enums rather than adding deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence stating the action, then listing fields and operators compactly. It includes the cost note efficiently. The only minor waste is repeating enum values already present in the schema, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers filter semantics but omits return structure, sorting, and universe selection details. Without an output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns (e.g., tickers vs. full objects), and the relationship to 'screen_with_scores' is unclear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'filters' parameter by listing allowed fields and operators and clarifying the AND conjunction. However, it does not explain 'range', 'sort_by', 'max_tickers', or the 'universe' parameter beyond their enum values, leaving some semantics implicit.

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?

Description explicitly states it screens a stock universe for tickers matching quantitative filters with logical AND, and lists the exact fields and operators. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'screen_with_scores' or other screening-related tools.

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 for quantitative filtering of a stock universe, and the paid note ('$0.0100/call') is a practical cost consideration. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screen_with_scores' or 'compute_universe_scores', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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