get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that price targets are returned 'when available', implying possible absence, and it clarifies input restrictions (no ISIN/WKN/company name). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe any error conditions or rate limits. For a 'get' tool, the behavior is mostly predictable but slightly under-disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's core purpose. The second sentence provides critical input constraints, and the third describes the return value. No redundant or unnecessary content appears.

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 sufficiently covers the essential context: what it returns, the input format requirement, and the recommended path for resolving non-ticker inputs. It could mention the read-only nature, but the tool's simplicity and the output schema mitigate that gap.

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?

While the schema already provides a detailed description of the 'symbol' parameter (100% coverage), the tool description adds extra value by giving concrete examples (AAPL, SAP.DE) and reiterating the prohibition on ISINs/WKNs/company names plus the 'search' fallback. This goes beyond the schema, reinforcing correct usage.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('analyst recommendation trends and price targets') for a Yahoo symbol. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quote and get_estimates by naming its unique output, and it explicitly differentiates from the search tool.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: it must receive a native Yahoo Finance ticker, and it explicitly tells the agent to use 'search' first when only an ISIN, WKN, or company name is available. This establishes a direct alternative. It could further contrast with get_estimates, but the provided context is sufficient for basic selection.

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