scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that output is per-symbol rule firing, but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by three targeted examples that each illustrate a distinct input pattern. There is no wasted text, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for a read-only scan tool. It omits any mention of the response_format option, though the schema enum makes that omission low-risk.

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 examples add meaningful semantic guidance for populating the symbols parameter from natural language, including empty input mapping to the configured watchlist and mapping 'bitcoin' to 'BTC-USD'. The response_format parameter is not mentioned, but its enum is present in the schema, so the main semantic gap is minor.

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 states a specific verb and resource: screen symbols against a ruleset and return which rules fired per symbol. It clearly distinguishes the operation from a generic data fetch. There are no siblings to differentiate against, so 4 is appropriate.

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 examples demonstrate concrete usage contexts, including an empty-symbols call to use the configured watchlist and mapping a natural-language query about bitcoin to the BTC-USD symbol. They provide clear context for invocation, though they do not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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