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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It provides useful context about the data's historical depth ('back to 1980') and granularity ('every individual broker estimate'), and it lists the fields returned. However, it does not mention possible large result sets, pagination, or any rate limits, which would be important for this kind of detailed archive query.

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 sentences that are densely informative without wordiness. The first sentence establishes the resource and scope; the second provides usage guidance and a sibling reference. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and usage, and lists the returned fields, which is helpful without an output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics (days, limit, measure) and does not indicate whether the results are sorted or how large a response might be. For a detailed historical archive tool, this leaves some gaps in an agent's ability to predict behavior.

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 only 25%, with only 'ticker' described. The description does not clarify the 'days', 'limit', or 'measure' parameters; while their names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'measure' could be ambiguous (e.g., EPS vs. revenue) and the interaction of 'days' with 'back to 1980' is unclear. The description offers no parameter-level guidance to compensate.

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 'Analyst-level estimate revision timeline' which is a specific verb+resource, and then enumerates the fields ('announce/revision dates, analyst id, fiscal period, value, realised actual') making it clear what data is returned. It also distinguishes itself from the consensus snapshot by saying 'for the consensus snapshot use /intel/street_estimates.' This makes the 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 explicitly states when to call it: 'reconstruct how the street walked numbers up or down before a print.' It also names the alternative: 'for the consensus snapshot use /intel/street_estimates.' This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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