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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is forward-looking consensus, deliberately narrow in scope, and excludes certain data types. This goes beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations about the data's nature, though it doesn't mention any rate limits or auth requirements (not essential for a read-only financial tool). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output fields; the second gives parameter semantics; the third states scope and directs to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the output schema exists (covering return values) and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description provides all additional context an agent needs: the nature of the data, the required parameter, the period/limit semantics, and the alternative tool for actuals. Nothing critical is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that ticker is required, explains that 'period' selects annual vs quarterly, and that 'limit' caps the number of periods returned. It also previews the response fields. The description effectively reinforces and expands on the schema, earning a 4.

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 ('get'), resource ('forward analyst consensus for one stock'), and enumerates the exact fields returned ('fiscal_period', 'period', 'revenue', 'earnings_per_share'). It explicitly contrasts itself with get_financial_earnings, making the distinction between estimates and actuals unmistakable. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it for what the street expects' and directs to get_financial_earnings for actual reported results and beat/miss. It also states the deliberate narrowness (no names, ratings, targets, dispersion), telling the agent exactly when NOT to use it. This fully satisfies the when/when-not requirement.

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