fmp_analyst_recommendations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the external source and API-key prerequisite, but does not mention return shape, whether the response is a list or object, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. Fetch implies a read, but little else is transparent.

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?

A single efficient sentence that leads with the core action and includes the key prerequisite. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides, though it could use additional structured details without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should describe return values; it does not. It also omits how the API key is supplied, what limit represents, and what the response contains, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for symbol (the entity to fetch) and api_key (required FMP key), but the limit parameter is left undocumented despite having a default and bounds that suggest it controls the number of history entries returned.

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 identifies a specific action (Fetch), resource (analyst recommendation history), target (a symbol), and source (Financial Modeling Prep). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools by source, though it does not explicitly contrast sibling alternatives.

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 only usage-related information is that an FMP API key is required. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over polygon_analyst_insights, zacks_scrape_symbol, or other analyst-related siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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