search_screener_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the catalog size (~1,500 metrics) and types (financial metrics, product segments, regions), but does not detail result format, pagination, or error handling. This is good but not exhaustive.

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 highly concise: two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides essential details without waste.

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 complex domain (1500+ metrics), no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview. It explains the tool's role in the pipeline but lacks details on result structure or query matching behavior. Still reasonably complete for its function.

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 mentions 'product segments and regions' in the catalog, which aligns with the 'type' enum, but does not explicitly describe the 'query' or 'type' parameters. The example shows a query string usage, but parameter semantics are only partially clarified.

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 'Search Tijori's screener field catalog' and specifies the tool is for finding exact field names before building a screen_companies query. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_company and screen_companies, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use to find the exact field name before building a screen_companies query,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It includes an example but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is clear.

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