screen_stocks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, scope of results). With annotations covering safety, description is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place. Ideal for quick agent parsing.

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-only screening tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the number of strategies and examples. Missing output format but no output schema exists; agent can infer typical stock screening results. Adequate but could hint at output structure.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('strategy' and 'min_score'). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions '13 strategies' but without listing them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool screens stocks using 13 strategies ('Buffett, Graham, Piotroski...'). The verb 'screening' and resource 'stocks' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_stocks' or 'get_stock_info', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. Missing explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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