Analyst estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing a failure mode not present in any structured field: non-equity symbols (ETF, fund, crypto) return an error saying so, and results are 'small tables keyed by period'. It stops short of describing rate limits or auth, but the error behavior is a useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return contents and the equity-only caveat. The middle sentence restating return values is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and earns most of its place.

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-param read tool, the definition covers purpose, output shape, and the key failure mode, and annotations plus an output schema carry the safety and return-value burden. The only real gap is the absence of sibling routing, which is minor given how self-descriptive the tool is.

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 100%, so the single 'symbol' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (Yahoo ticker or ISIN, with the search fallback for company names). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get forward analyst estimates for a Yahoo symbol') and enumerates the returned content (earnings/revenue estimates, EPS trend/revisions, growth estimates), which lets an agent distinguish it from broader siblings like get_financials. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_earnings, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers it should call this when it wants forward-looking analyst estimates. The 'Equity-only' note functions as a genuine exclusion (ETF/fund/crypto will fail), but there are no explicit alternatives or when-to-use routing against siblings such as get_earnings or get_recommendations.

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