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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds that the result is an aggregate of several external sources (Yahoo consensus, guidance, broker ratings), which is useful behavioral context, but omits freshness/staleness, coverage gaps, or rate-limit behavior for a multi-source aggregation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the components, then the positioning claim. Efficient overall, though 'The most complete view of market expectations for any NZX stock' is unverifiable marketing that consumes space without adding selection value.

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 format needn't be documented, and the description still characterizes the categories of data returned. Combined with full annotation coverage of the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Only one parameter, with schema description coverage at 100% including format examples ('FPH', 'AIR', 'MEL'). The description adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the schema does the work; with a single fully documented parameter the baseline is high rather than a gap.

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 ('unified analyst consensus estimates') scoped to NZX companies, then enumerates the aggregated sources. It implicitly positions itself against siblings like get_analyst_consensus and get_broker_coverage via 'unified' and 'most complete view', but never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'for an NZX company' and the 'most complete view' framing, which hints at when to prefer this over narrower siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the narrower alternatives, and no prerequisites stated.

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