Screeners

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds return content: saved screeners/presets with id, name, and plain-language filters. It does not discuss auth, pagination, or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact sentences front-load what the tool returns and then give the next action. The opening parenthetical about Egypt is slightly misplaced but not verbose.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description supplies enough output context and usage linkage to call it correctly. The market-scope wording is a minor gap because it only names Egypt while the schema supports four markets.

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 the market enum is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics and only mentions Egypt, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource as saved Thndr screeners and ThndrX presets with id, name, and filters, and contrasts it with screen_market for execution. It lacks an explicit verb and leads with a confusing 'Egypt' scope, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to run a screener with screen_market using screenerId or preset, which implies get_screeners is the discovery step. It does not cover when not to use it or other alternatives, so not a 5.

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