get_value_stock_screen

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

The description discloses many behavioral details beyond annotations: all criteria must hold, dividend-yield priority rule (NxFDivAnn > FDivAnn), REITs excluded, margin_ratio/margin_date null on Free/Light plans, cache-only invocation, and edge cases like net-loss or negative-book stocks never matching. These add significant context beyond the read-only and idempotent hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but highly structured: summary sentence, keyword aliases, detailed criteria, exclusions, plan notes, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value and the organization makes it easy to scan even with its length.

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 10-parameter screen with no schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete: it explains all criteria, defaults, edge cases, plan limits, and output nuances like margin_ratio null behavior. An output schema exists, so return values are covered; the description fills all other contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description contains a full Args block explaining every parameter with defaults, ranges, and edge-case semantics (e.g., 'Net-loss stocks (EPS<=0) never match'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding meaning far beyond the property titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Screen value stocks near their 52-week low with high forward dividend yield and a profit-increase forecast.' It clearly lists criteria and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., 'For a single criterion use get_valuation_ranking / get_dividend_yield_ranking / detect_52w_high_low') and notes it is included in get_market_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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: Japanese/English keyword aliases, a direct statement that single-criterion alternatives should be used, REIT exclusion with a pointer to get_dividend_yield_ranking, and supported plan information. This is far beyond a vague 'use when you need...' statement.

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