run_stock_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The parameters watchlist and save_result suggest possible persistence or retrieval, but their purpose is not explained in the description. The tool might write results or consult a watchlist, yet the description only says 'run a screen', which is ambiguous regarding side effects and state changes.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and enumerates the screen types without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 tool has 4 parameters including a nested object and an output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the structure of the criteria object, the meaning of watchlist and save_result, the expected behavior for each screen_type, or what the returned data will look like. The agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 only 50% (criteria and screen_type have meaningful descriptions; watchlist and save_result only have the generic 'Safe persistence name'). The tool description does not add any clarification for these parameters, nor does it explain what 'criteria' should contain or how watchlist and save_result are used. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('stock screen'), and enumerates the specific screen categories (technical, fundamental, options, news, custom). It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as manage_watchlist, get_screening_result, and get_stock_news, which handle different aspects of screening work.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention that it is for executing a screen to get results, nor does it contrast with retrieve_screening_result or manage_watchlist. The phrase 'legacy' hints at a deprecated nature but is not elaborated, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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