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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions filtering criteria and says 'identify the best opportunities,' but does not describe the return format, pagination behavior (despite a `limit` parameter), rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a screening tool with 19 parameters.

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 and front-loads the main purpose. The first sentence includes somewhat vague marketing language ('align with your investment strategy', 'best opportunities'), but the second sentence is concrete and efficient. It earns a 4 for being concise and readable, though it could be tightened.

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?

The tool is complex (19 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description provides only a high-level overview, lacking operational details such as how filters combine (AND/OR), units for market cap, how to handle pagination via `limit`, or what fields are returned. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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%, with every parameter already self-explanatory (e.g., 'Filter companies with price greater than this value'). The description adds a grouped list of filter types ('market cap, price, volume, beta, sector, country, and more') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not conflict with or enhance the parameter docs.

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's function: 'Filter stocks based on market cap, price, volume, beta, sector, country, and more.' It names the specific resource (stocks via FMP Stock Screener API) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that return preset lists (e.g., getBiggestGainers, getMostActiveStocks) by emphasizing customizable screening.

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: use this tool to discover stocks matching your investment criteria. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that for precomputed lists like top gainers, one should use getBiggestGainers instead. Thus, guidance is implied but not explicit.

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