Screen Companies

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context about the trading-halt status field and the excludeHalted feature, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key features. The second sentence is somewhat long but still clear. Could be split for readability, but overall efficient.

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 the 20 optional parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the screening purpose and highlights the halt status feature. It does not detail pagination or return structure beyond key metrics, but the output schema fills that gap. Reasonably complete.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra semantics, primarily highlighting the excludeHalted parameter behavior and sorting capability. For most parameters, the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 clearly states the tool screens companies by multiple financial and industry criteria, listing specific filters (price, volume, cash runway, etc.) and noting sortability and pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_quote or screen_sec_filings by its focus on broad company screening.

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 implies usage for filtering companies with numeric/industry criteria and mentions the optional excludeHalted parameter, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for simple lookups.

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