Screen Stocks

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: performance characteristics (fast vs. slow), the requirement for per-company API calls on deep filters, and coverage of 10,000+ companies. This helps the agent anticipate cost and latency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then performance guidance, then industry enumeration. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 5-parameter read-only screening tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filter options, performance trade-offs, and valid industry values. It does not explain how multiple filters combine or what happens when no filters are provided, but the schema's limit default mitigates that gap. Overall, it is solid but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping parameters to performance categories: exchange/nameContains are fast, industry/minHealthScore are slow and require API calls. It also lists acceptable industry values, though those are already in the schema, adding some redundancy.

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: 'Discover SEC-registered companies by exchange, industry, name, or financial health score.' This clearly states what the tool does. However, the sibling tool 'search_companies' likely overlaps in purpose, and the description does not explicitly distinguish screen_stocks from it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear within-tool usage guidance by separating 'Fast filters' from 'Deep filters' and warning that deep filters are slower due to per-company API calls. This implies when to prefer certain filters but does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_companies, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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