get_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes a 'Returns' line indicating a dictionary of analyst recommendations, which adds some output context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (beyond the verb 'Get'), any authentication needs, rate limits, or data quality characteristics, leaving room for more transparency.

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 brief and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it does, what input it expects, and what type of output it returns. Since the output schema exists, detailed return values are not required in the description. The simplicity of the tool makes this description sufficient.

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 input schema has no description for the 'symbol' parameter, but the tool description provides an 'Args' section explaining it as a 'Stock ticker symbol' with examples 'AAPL' and 'GOOGL'. This fully compensates for the missing schema description and clarifies the expected input format.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'analyst recommendations for a stock', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_info and get_financials by focusing on recommendations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is clear enough to imply usage for analyst recommendations, but there is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, making it implied rather than explicit guidance.

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