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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by describing the returned data (rating counts) and the summary nature, but it does not disclose response structure, symbol format requirements, error behavior, or whether any rate limits apply, leaving gaps for a simple read operation.

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?

The description is three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. There is some redundancy ('overall view', 'consolidated summary', 'overall consensus') that could be streamlined, but overall it is efficiently written and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable explanation of the return content (rating counts) and purpose. It could be more precise about the exact response fields or error cases, but it is adequate for the low 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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'symbol' (described as 'Stock symbol'). The tool description reinforces that it operates on 'individual stock symbols' but adds no new constraints, formats, or examples beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('access an overall view') and the resource ('FMP Grades Summary API'), and specifies the exact content (counts of strong buy, buy, hold, sell, strong sell ratings). It differentiates from siblings like getStockGrades by framing this as a consolidated summary, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the use case ('quickly access an overall view', 'understand the overall consensus') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks direct contrast with similar sibling tools such as getStockGrades or getRatingsSnapshot, so guidance is only implied.

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