get_us_screener

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only screener with safe behavior, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, or result format details (though output schema exists). It is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: overview, examples, preset list, then parameters. Every sentence is useful, though it mixes Korean and English. A bit longer than necessary, but still efficient.

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?

With only two optional parameters, a full preset list, and an output schema, the description covers all needed context. No critical information is missing.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it lists all preset options with friendly names, specifies default values, and explains the purpose of each parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 explicitly states it is a US stock screener for predefined presets, with examples like 'today's top gainers' and a full list of presets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide individual stock data or general search.

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 concrete example questions and lists all available presets, giving strong guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for custom screening.

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