get_valuation_ranking

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds details: cache-only, no API call, behavior with net-loss stocks and stale financials via disc_months. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, use cases, exclusions, alternatives, supported plans, then parameters. Slightly long but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened.

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?

Covers all 8 parameters and usage contexts. No output schema in description, but context signals confirm one exists, so return format explanation is not required. Still provides helpful hint that both ratios are returned per item.

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 description compensates with detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's meaning, defaults, allowed values, and behavior (e.g., metric options, n range, market allowed values, disc_months purpose).

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?

Specific verb 'Rank' and resource 'listed stocks' with clear qualifier 'by PER or PBR valuation multiple'. Description lists multiple use cases in Japanese and English, and differentiates from siblings like get_sector_briefing and get_stock_briefing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (e.g., 'Use for 割安株, PER/PBRランキング') and provides alternatives for other scenarios (sector medians, single stock, dividend yield). Specifies defaults and exclusions (net-loss stocks, negative-book).

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