list_screeners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' implies a safe read, and the format default is disclosed, but there is no mention of return volume, pagination, or whether results are static — meaningful gaps for a catalog tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it lists, when to call it, and the format switch. Nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-optional-param listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: purpose, sequencing with get_screener, and format behavior. Only pagination/result-size expectations are unaddressed.

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% and both parameters carry enum values with their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the default-format note ('Text default; set format=json'), which is a marginal restatement of the schema's '(default: text)'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists available stock screeners') plus a scoping qualifier ('organized by category'). An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery tool from the retrieval sibling get_screener.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use to discover screener names before calling get_screener', naming the alternative and the sequencing condition. No when-not guidance is given, but the discovery-vs-fetch distinction is unambiguous.

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