profiles_recommendation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get recommendation trend' implies a read operation but does not clarify what counts as a 'trend' (e.g., historical series, current consensus, rating changes), what the output format is, or whether any permissions are needed. This is insufficient for a financial data tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for its purpose, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage or output cues 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?

Given the large sibling set (including profiles_*, earnings_trend, sentiment_analyst) and the absence of an output schema, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot infer what 'recommendation trend' specifically entails, how it differs from similar tools, or what the response structure looks like. The description does not provide enough context for confident 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?

The schema covers the sole required parameter 'ticker' with a basic description ('Stock ticker'), reaching 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., ticker format, accepted exchanges). Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('recommendation trend'), and a target ('ticker'). The verb-object pairing is unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic tools like 'profiles_profile' or 'profiles_statistics', though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 such as 'earnings_trend', 'sentiment_analyst', or other profile-related tools. It only states what it does without any contextual cues, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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