screener_get_company_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the output contents (ratios, about text, checklist). No contradictions are present.

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 that summarizes the tool's outputs without unnecessary detail. Every word adds value.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema covering returns, the description lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete without usage context.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (symbol, consolidated, response_format). The baseline is 3, but since coverage is low and description fails to compensate for parameter meaning, the score drops to 2.

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 that the tool retrieves key ratios (P/E, book value, ROE, ROCE, market cap, dividend yield), company about text, and pros/cons checklist from screener.in. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screener_get_balance_sheet or screener_get_cash_flow, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like screener_get_company_insights or screener_get_full_company_snapshot. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no direct guidance on context or exclusions.

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