list_screens

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool deals with public stock screens, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not discuss rate limits or authorization, but the behavioral context is clear enough.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by bullet-style argument explanations. No unnecessary words, every element adds value.

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 no annotations and a complete output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It could include an example usage, but the current coverage is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: page (default), q (search with examples), sort (title or screen_id). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only has names and types.

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 'Browse or search public stock screens' with examples like 'Magic Formula', clearly specifying the verb (browse/search) and resource (public stock screens). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screen_details, which is for specific screen details.

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 explains when to use the tool (to browse or search screens) and the arguments for filtering (q, sort). It implicitly suggests not using it for detailed view, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_screen_details.

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