screen_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation (screens data), explains caching for pagination, mentions optional flags that modify behavior, and details the query syntax. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but these are expected for such a tool.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the primary purpose and then detailing each parameter. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, query syntax, optional flags, pagination with caching semantics, and refers to sibling fields for valid values. The only minor omission is an explicit note about the output format, but it is implied.

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%, meaning the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively: preset, filters (with string and object formats and examples), alternate (with relationship syntax and examples), latest_results_only, superstar_investors, sme, limit, and offset (with caching behavior).

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 screens companies by financial metrics and/or business data. It uses a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('companies'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_company and list_popular_screens by detailing two modes (preset vs custom filters/alternate) and flags.

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 explains when to use preset vs custom filters/alternate, and covers optional flags and pagination. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but provides clear guidance on query syntax and alternatives (e.g., using alternate for business-data queries).

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