screen_halal_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the checks and outputs (verdict, failed checks, purification ratio) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or data persistence. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, includes a list of checks and example queries. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description usefully mentions the return format (compliance verdict, failed checks, purification ratio). It covers the key aspects needed for an AI agent to use the tool, though more detail on edge cases or assumptions could improve completeness.

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 each parameter well-described. The tool description adds context by linking parameters to AAOIFI ratios, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 description uses a specific verb 'Screen' with a clear resource 'stock for Sharia compliance using AAOIFI standard financial ratios'. It lists specific checks and outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_bmi_bmr_tdee or convert_currency.

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 provides clear context and example queries, effectively signaling when to use the tool (for halal screening). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the lack of similar sibling tools.

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