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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it warns that most names are blank because only desk-reached names are graded, that a blank means UNRATED and never Hold, that it is not Street consensus nor investment advice, and that reports inline for only 3 names at a time. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with WHEN, then NOT for, then Returns, which is exactly the priority order an agent needs. The three quoted user-phrasing examples are mildly redundant but serve as retrieval cues, so the text mostly earns its length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description inlines the full return shape including row fields, the grade enum, and what null versus blank means. Combined with the usage boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 compensate; it states the up-to-20 batch limit and the 3-name report-inlining limit, which explains the practical effect of include_essay. It never names include_essay directly, leaving the boolean's exact semantics inferred rather than stated.

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 states a specific verb and resource — retrieves Dantes' grade and analyst report for named symbols — and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming analyst-actions as the Street-consensus alternative. An agent can tell immediately what this returns versus get_capability or search_capabilities.

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 opens with an explicit WHEN clause keyed to the user's phrasing ("what does Dantes say about WING", "is NVDA a Strong Buy") and follows with a NOT for clause that names the excluded case (rating a market or a screen's survivors wholesale) and explains why. Alternatives and boundaries are both covered.

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