get_research_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the tool retrieves reports. With annotations covering safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with a strategy tag, example, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. It does not explain return values, but output schema fulfills that. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or freshness, but acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 carries the full burden. It explains 'symbol' as security symbol and 'count' as number of reports with default 10, providing meaning beyond the schema titles. This compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves analyst research reports for a stock, with strategy tag specifying use for analyst ratings and target prices. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_news or get_quote.

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 strategy tag provides explicit context for when to use: for analyst ratings and target prices. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations but effectively guides usage.

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