get_us_analyst

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool, and the description adds behavioral detail by enumerating what is returned: mean/high/low price targets, buy/hold/sell distribution, and recent upgrade/downgrade actions. 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?

The description is compact and front-loads the tool's purpose, then gives examples, return contents, and argument guidance. The bilingual repeat of 'US analyst ratings / price target / rating' adds slight redundancy but does not bloat the entry.

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 single-ticker read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly: US scope, ticker argument, and the kinds of questions it answers. It doesn't discuss coverage limitations or data freshness, but the output schema and annotations cover much of the rest.

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 compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'ticker: US 티커 (예: NVDA)' — indicating the accepted format and providing an example. For one required parameter this is sufficient; more detail on case or exchange suffix would be nice but is not essential.

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 tool returns US analyst price targets and ratings (목표주가 + 투자의견) and lists specific outputs: mean/high/low targets, buy/hold/sell distribution, and recent upgrades/downgrades. It is specific about the resource and the example queries, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_consensus or get_us_info.

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?

It provides concrete query patterns such as 'AAPL 목표가', 'NVDA analyst rating', and 'Tesla buy/hold', telling an agent exactly when to invoke this tool. It does not state when not to use it or name preferred alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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