screen_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It usefully reveals that filters combine with AND, apply across the entire listed-company universe, and surviving companies are sorted. However, it does not disclose the result shape, behavior with no conditions, or pagination expectations beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, scope, filtering semantics, and sorting; the second provides the sibling distinction. Every clause adds information.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the key AND-combination semantics, while the schema covers parameter details. The main gap is that the return contents are only implied by 'survivors' rather than described, and no caveats or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 input schema already documents all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful semantic not explicit in the schema: numeric and categorical criteria are combined with AND. This helps an agent correctly model how the various filter fields interact.

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: filtering the whole universe of Japanese listed companies by numeric and categorical criteria, AND-combining them, then sorting survivors. It explicitly contrasts this with search_companies, so an agent can distinguish screening-by-profile from lookup-by-known-company.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule: use screen_companies when looking for companies that match a profile, and use search_companies when you already know the company. This is direct routing guidance between the two closest siblings, though it does not discuss other siblings like get_ranking.

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