get_institutional_rating

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the return type (Markdown table) and parameter formats, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, error handling, or whether it is read-only. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more succinct in language.

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 3 parameters and no output schema (though described as Markdown table), the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks details on return structure, error scenarios, and data scope, making it only moderately complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: stock_code is 'stock code, digits only', begin_time and end_time specify format examples. This goes beyond the schema's titles, aiding correct invocation.

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 name and description clearly state the tool retrieves institutional rating data. The description includes parameters and an example, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_business_review' or 'get_valuation_analysis', which might also provide financial data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes the tool's function without context about its applicability.

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