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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result is a 'latest consensus snapshot' (point-in-time, not a time series), which helps the agent set expectations. It adds nothing on staleness, refresh cadence, or coverage gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of returned fields. No filler. Slightly long due to the field list, but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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 formatting need not be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete enough for a one-parameter read tool, with the only real gap being explicit routing relative to sibling consensus/coverage tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including inline examples ('AIR', 'SPK', 'FPH'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description reinforces NZX scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (analyst consensus data for an NZX company) and enumerates the payload: rating, analyst count, target prices, buy/hold/sell breakdown, covering brokers. An agent can tell it apart from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings get_consensus_estimates or get_broker_coverage.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only contextual cue is 'Returns the latest consensus snapshot', which implies point-in-time data but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_consensus_estimates.

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