screen_estimate_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the comparison logic, materiality thresholds, filtering directions, and the effect of omitting tickers. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any side effects, though an output schema exists.

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 with two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. It could be more structured, but it's clear and efficient.

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?

The description competently covers all inputs, default behavior, materiality logic, and optional parameters. Given the output schema exists, return format is not needed. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds only marginal value beyond schema. It does provide context on default behavior and how thresholds work, but the parameter meanings are already clear from the schema.

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 states the tool screens a ticker universe for material estimate momentum, compares latest estimates against a lookback snapshot, and returns per-ticker deltas/direction. It specifies default filtering criteria and optional parameters, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_estimate_revisions or screen_stocks.

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 explains when to use the tool (to screen for estimate momentum) and details default behavior and parameter overrides. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the sibling tool names provide indirect guidance.

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