Valuation scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: the data source is Mofid only, and the response shape (score scale out of 10, rating vocabulary Buy/Neutral/Sell). It does not mention volume or rate limits, but nothing here suggests those matter for a scored lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then source/routing, then the three input modes – a sensible order with no filler. The "profitability, liquidity, momentum etc." list is slightly redundant with the enum, but it is a minor cost.

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 no output schema and five optional parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it: it names the comparison fields, the rating scale and the 10-point fundamental score. Only row ordering and how the theoretical-price delta is signed are left implicit.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already explain the isins/section/neither exclusivity and the "overall table only" filters. The description largely restates this synthesis and only adds example section names, so it does not add meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

"Return Bourse View's valuation scores" names a specific resource, and the sentence then enumerates the actual payload (theoretical vs market price, technical rating, fundamental score out of 10). It also distinguishes itself from br_stock and br_technical by naming what those siblings return instead.

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?

Explicit mode selection: ISINs for named symbols, `section` to rank the market, nothing for the overall fundamental table. It also routes the agent to alternatives ("Pair with br_stock for price and ratios; br_technical (Agah) gives an indicator tally"), which is exactly the sibling disambiguation an agent needs.

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