zacks_scrape_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the scrape is 'best effort' and that HTML may be blocked without a valid browser session/cookies. However, it does not describe failure behavior, whether the cookie parameter is required, network implications, or what the tool returns on partial success.

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 a single compact sentence that conveys the main purpose and a key caveat without padding. It is slightly dense because of the parenthetical 'best effort' clause and the mention of 'quote-feed', but every element contributes useful information.

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?

For a scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the return value shape, how to interpret failure, whether results include raw HTML or parsed data, or how the optional cookie interacts with the scraping flow. The provided caveat helps but is not enough for confident autonomous invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'symbol' is inferable from the tool name, and 'cookie' is only indirectly referenced via 'valid browser session/cookies'. The description does not clearly explain how the cookie parameter should be supplied, its format, or whether it is required for different use cases.

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 names a specific action ('Fetch Zacks rank', 'scrape symbol/report pages') and concrete data targets ('Earnings ESP', 'analysis text'). It clearly identifies the resource (Zacks) and distinguishes it from the many non-Zacks sibling tools without needing to reference them.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for retrieving Zacks rank, Earnings ESP, and visible analysis text. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other data-source tools, nor does it mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

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