screener_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the alphabetical ordering, the non-ranking semantic, the absence of headlines, pagination mechanics, the 500-row limit, the next_after continuation contract, and the meaning of total. This gives the agent important behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 and well structured, front-loading the core purpose before explaining the unranked nature and paging contract. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return shape, paging, ordering, and the key exclusion of headlines. It also names the relevant sibling tool for follow-up, making the context complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It explains that `limit` controls page size up to 500 and `after` is the cursor position, with `next_after` to continue. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema fields and their defaults.

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 returns the symbols currently in view, alphabetically paginated, with a defined row shape of {symbol, report_date, session, article_count}. It also distinguishes itself from symbol_news by noting headlines are intentionally excluded, which prevents confusion with a sibling tool.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: headlines are not here, and symbol_news should be called for a symbol's stories and links. It also warns that the output is deliberately unranked and should not be presented as a recommendation or top list, giving clear guidance on appropriate use.

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