Fundamentals screener

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns each company's reported value and mentions pagination, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations, but no contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no extraneous information. Efficiently communicates key details.

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 explains the return value (each company's reported value). It provides an illustrative example. Annotation coverage is present. Slight gap: no explanation of the unit or taxonomy parameters, but they are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the concept and period parameters with examples, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'screen' and explicitly states it screens one XBRL concept for one fiscal period across all filers, clearly distinguishing it from sibling stocks_financial_concept which does time series for one company.

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?

Directly states when to use (cross-sectional across all filers) and when to use the alternative sibling (stocks_financial_concept). Also mentions pagination via cursor/limit. However, it does not provide exclusions for other siblings or additional context.

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