egx_stock_screener

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds parameter constraints (timeframe options, min_score range, limit max 50) and emphasizes production readiness, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not describe output structure or rate limits, though this is a minor gap given the 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single front-loaded purpose statement followed by a clean args block. Every sentence and line provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation. It covers purpose, all parameters, and constraints. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format (e.g., a list of stocks with scores), but this is reasonably implied.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description explicitly explains all four parameters with allowed values, defaults, and constraints. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema (e.g., index_filter values, max limit of 50, score range 0-100).

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 a 'Production stock ranking engine for EGX' with the specific action of finding 'strong stocks with actionable setups.' This distinguishes it from generic market overview tools or price lookups by focusing on ranking and trade setups.

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 implies use for screening EGX stocks by timeframe, score, and index, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like egx_market_overview or stock_screener. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are provided.

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