A Stock Screener

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is a screener with combined conditions but does not reveal whether filters are combined with AND/OR semantics, how results are ordered, whether data is real-time, or any other behavior that would help an agent anticipate side effects or output characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though it would benefit from a bit more substantive detail about filtering behavior.

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 9 optional parameters and the existence of specialized sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important context unstated, such as how conditions combine and how this tool relates to scan_limit_up_stocks and scan_limit_down_stocks. The rich parameter schema and presence of an output schema reduce the burden, but the high-level usage context is still incomplete.

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%, so each of the 9 optional parameters already has meaningful documentation including defaults, types, and filter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool as an A-share stock screener and mentions its core capability of multi-condition combination filtering. It is specific enough to distinguish it from single-purpose tools like limit-up or limit-down scanners, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings.

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 phrase 'supports multi-condition combined filtering' implies the tool should be used when multiple screening criteria are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer specialized siblings such as scan_limit_up_stocks or scan_limit_down_stocks.

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