fq_screen_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, rate limits, or output characteristics.

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 short (two sentences) but lacks structure. It frontloads the main purpose but omits important details. Not overly verbose, but could be more organized with parameter descriptions.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the screening logic, how filters work, what the output contains, or how to use parameters like sectors, exchanges, etc. Annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.

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%, so description should compensate. It only mentions that 'filters is JSON array string of indicator rules', but there are 7 other parameters (limit, fields, sectors, etc.) with no explanation. This is insufficient for an 8-param tool.

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 'Stock screening' which gives a general idea but lacks specificity about what the tool returns or how screening works. It distinguishes from siblings only by the screen concept, but doesn't differentiate clearly.

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. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided. The description does not help the agent decide when to invoke screening over other data retrieval tools.

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