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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the nature of the returned content (ratings, targets, forecast distribution, consensus summary), which is useful but not behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. No auth, rate limit, or freshness context is given.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with the subject (NZX company coverage) established immediately. Slightly list-heavy in enumerating return fields, but nothing is genuinely wasteful.

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 values need not be re-explained in the description, and both parameters are documented. Purpose and returned content are adequately conveyed for a simple two-parameter read tool; only usage routing to siblings is missing.

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 both the ticker and include parameters are fully documented in the schema, including section values. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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/broker coverage) for an NZX company, and enumerates the key data returned. It is clear on its own, but doesn't differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_analyst_consensus or get_consensus_estimates.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as get_analyst_consensus or get_consensus_estimates. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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