get_market_movers

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden; it discloses the data source (Yahoo Finance screener) and the read-only nature implied by "döndürür", which is useful behavioral context. However it says nothing about rate limits, caching/freshness, auth needs, or how many/which regions are actually supported.

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 compact sentences with the resource description front-loaded and the usage note trailing. No filler, though the enumerated list slightly overlaps the schema's enum values.

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 3-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns at a high level but never describes the return shape (tickers, prices, change %), pagination, or behavior across regions, leaving gaps an agent would need to probe.

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 100% and the enum for screen is fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the screen categories in prose but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 (döndürür/returns) and resource (hazır hisse listeleri / ready-made stock lists), enumerating the concrete list types: day gainers/losers, most actives, tech growth, value. This makes the tool distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping get_trending_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?

"Piyasa taraması ve fırsat keşfi için kullanılır" gives an implied use case (market screening and opportunity discovery) but names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions, even though siblings like get_trending_stocks or get_market_summary could plausibly be chosen instead.

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