Screen the whole market

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: a fixed cost of five requests regardless of universe size, computation from primary filing data, a defined ranking (NCAV as a share of tangible book), and an explicit exclusion of price data with the rationale behind it. This is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

One dense paragraph with the purpose front-loaded and no filler sentences; each clause carries new information. It is slightly heavy as a single block rather than separated usage/behavior notes, which costs it the top mark.

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?

With annotations covering safety and open-world scope, and no output schema, the description responsibly states the return shape (candidates ranked by NCAV share of tangible book) and the deliberate absence of prices. It does not describe record fields or how the `limit` interacts with the ranking, leaving a minor gap.

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 75% and the schema already documents `period` thoroughly (trailing I, use an older quarter) plus the two threshold parameters. The description reinforces the NCAV/tangible-book relationship behind `minNcavRatio`, but adds no format or boundary detail for `limit` or the numeric thresholds, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (screen), a precise resource and scope (every SEC filer that reported in a quarter), and names the underlying data source (XBRL frames endpoint). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like analyze_ticker or get_quotes, which operate on single tickers.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream: run `analyze_ticker` on the survivors to get a dated price and a verdict, and explains why this tool deliberately omits prices. The when-to-use case (whole-market, filing-derived screening) is clear, though it never states a negative condition such as when a per-ticker tool is the better first call.

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