Get multibagger candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the nature of the results (risk/variance, screening criteria), which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but could have disclosed more about rate limits or result structure.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with usage guidance and risk context. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous text.

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 tool with a simple schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, its risk profile, and when to use it. It also differentiates from a sibling, making it contextually complete for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter ('limit'), so the description need not repeat it. The description focuses on tool purpose rather than parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('multibagger candidates'), and clearly explains what the tool does: flags small/mid-caps with high upside potential based on revenue acceleration and improving fundamentals. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'hidden gems' by noting higher risk/variance, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use for aggressive growth idea generation,' defining when to apply the tool. The comparison with hidden gems ('Higher risk/variance than hidden gems') implies a preference for more conservative scenarios, effectively providing an alternative and exclusion context.

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