get_estimates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure ('small tables keyed by period'), equity-only behavior, and empty results for non-equities, covering key edge cases. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, but for a simple getter these are less critical; the provided transparency is strong.

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 consists of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating functionality, specifying symbol requirements, and describing output and scope. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses clear formatting for the symbol constraint, and has no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, what it returns, and when it returns empty. It also integrates the workflow by referencing the search tool for symbol resolution. There are no significant gaps in the description for this tool's complexity.

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 already provides detailed parameter documentation (100% coverage), including examples and explicit invalids. The description repeats the same symbol requirement but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra parameter insight.

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 opens with 'Get forward analyst estimates for a Yahoo symbol,' a specific verb and resource. It lists what is returned (earnings/revenue estimates, EPS trend/revisions, growth estimates), distinguishing it from siblings like get_earnings and get_financials. The scope is clearly delimited to equity symbols, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for native Yahoo Finance tickers, and tells the agent to resolve ISIN/WKN/names via 'search' first. It also says 'Equity-only; empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto,' providing clear exclusions and implying alternative tools for those asset types. This is concrete guidance on when and when not to invoke.

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