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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it groups analysts into bull/bear/neutral camps, returns paraphrased points, and provides balanced analysis rather than a recommendation. Yet it omits details like error handling, prerequisites (e.g., valid handles), or the effect of limit_per_analyst, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two paragraphs with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is not overly verbose, though the second paragraph could be tightened. The structure is logical, starting with the primary action and then elaborating on the output and analytical stance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is not needed in the description. The description covers the main purpose and behavior, but the omission of limit_per_analyst is a notable gap. It also does not mention any prerequisites for handles, making the description incomplete for full self-contained usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers ticker and handles via 'ONE ticker' and 'named analysts,' but it completely fails to mention limit_per_analyst, leaving its meaning and default unclear. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Compare several analysts' takes on ONE ticker and surface the clash.' It specifies the resource (analysts' takes on a ticker) and the outcome (surface the clash). It differentiates from sibling tools like analyst_views or analyst_profile by focusing on multiple analysts and debate, 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 implies usage for multi-analyst comparison by saying 'several analysts' and 'ONE ticker,' and adds 'Balanced analysis, not a recommendation' to clarify its analytical nature. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a single analyst's view is needed, which would point to analyst_views or analyst_profile.

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