beqs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or produces any side effects. The agent has no clue about behavior beyond the name.

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 extremely short (four words), which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It is underspecified and fails to earn its brevity by omitting critical details.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the concept of an equity screen, how parameters interact, or what output to expect, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (screen, asof, typ, group, kwargs). The agent must guess what each parameter does based solely on the name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Get Bloomberg equity screening' provides a verb and resource, but is too vague to distinguish from sibling tools like bdp or bds, which likely perform similar financial data retrieval tasks. It lacks specificity about what 'screening' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bdh, bdp). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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