Preset Screen (redirect)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial behavioral context that this is not a standalone operation and that its parameter is ignored, reinforcing that calling it is a no-op redirect.

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 sentence front-loads the most important fact ('Not a standalone tool') and then delivers the routing alternatives without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 redirect stub, the definition is complete: it tells the agent not to use the tool, names the correct alternatives, and confirms the input is ignored. No output schema is necessary because the tool has no meaningful output to describe.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'preset' with 'Ignored — see the redirect message,' so the parameter's semantics are fully documented. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but none is needed because the parameter has no effect; this aligns with the schema-coverage 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?

The description immediately declares 'Not a standalone tool' and enumerates the exact alternatives (get_trending_stocks, screen_stocks, screen_stocks_technical), making it clear this is a redirect stub rather than a real screen runner. It distinguishes itself from the sibling screening tools with concrete conditions.

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 provides explicit routing logic: use get_trending_stocks for ready-made movers, screen_stocks for custom fundamental screens, and screen_stocks_technical for technical screens. An agent knows exactly when to choose an alternative and which one fits the user's intent.

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